Actually, all user groups are encouraged to complete the survey. There's a view that in trying to 'please everyone', that DCC are, in fact, making the track benign and of no interest to any user group, hence the involvement of the BMC and Friends of the Peak District in the campaign.

The pictures shown do no represent the sections affected by the works, plus as a walker and a biker who has visited The Peaks for over 30 years, it's not just mountain bikers who are annoyed.

Why all of a sudden are the powers that be doing this work, that particular right of way has been that way for well over 20 years?

I thought these were times of austerity, apparently the council has time and money to waste, I for one would rather see the money spent on filling a few pot holes!!!

How about showing some pictures of the work so far, get your facts right, please!

I find your article very misleading, perhaps you would like to correct your errors in the near future?

Liz, there's also a distinction between Chapel Gate - which most would agree needed work (your picture showing a good example) and Rushup Edge, which most believe only needs a light touch to bring it up to globally accepted standards. The groups have asked for adequate consultation.

Don't demonise mountain bikers for this - they have proactively courted other groups to campaign against this work.

The photos are wrong.

The top one shows a section of Chapel gate that has already been surfaced last year with Tarmac Road shavings.

The second one shows a section at the top which is not part of the contested works which 'everyone' would actually like them to address but has been ingnored on all 'repairs' since 2011

I feel these pictures have been added to re-enforce the generally negative bias of this article, which seems to be 'mountain bikers block trail repairs' and this is not the case at all. If repairs need making, they need making in a considered way to preserve the area, not flattening rugged paths and creating country park style flat paths everywhere.

This isn't about preseving the 'challenging' nature of the track, this is about preserving the natural beauty of the dark peak.

Mountain biking groups have been the fore front of this as no one else seems to care about it

You've shown the wrong area! The bed rock steps (now buried by works) are on what most people would call 'Rushup Edge' and is called such on any OS map. Attention to detail please!

I'd like to add that the work being carried out is wholly inappropriate for walkers and runners too. The exposed bedrock is perfect, as it's stable - the thought of covering it with anything is tragic in my opinion.

If you've walked over Kinder or spent time in the Lakes, you'll know that man made paths are effectively trying to recreate bedrock. Large slabs placed together, some steps etc.

DCC need to understand that steps aren't inherently bad for walkers and runner - they're great actually. It's loose surfaces that cause turned ankles.

Also, what's challenging for a mountain bike is very easy on foot - I couldn't ride up the stairs in my house! (I manage to walk up just fine)

We need some sympathetic maintainence. There's a lot of willing fell runners and mountain bikers to help.

If a step has eroded and enlarged, you need to drop a slab down to reduce the sped and firm up the surface.

The chunks of grit stone used create an unstable surface on top of what was stable slabs of bedrock. The Rushup route was in a stable condition and had not changed in twenty years, this is an example of a council with a budget to spend and nowhere better to spend it apparently.

Walkers, bikers and horse riders are not impeded by the condition of this route and 4x4s have been banned, who is the council doing this for?

Derbyshire County Council could have invested the 140K budget they have for these work on a fleet of off road wheelchairs, this would truly have opened up access to the Peak District to everyone.

Propaganda piece, walkers and horse riders are concerned too, yet the writer is trying to sway public opinion with misleading photographs and false statements, just like the council. "It's these mutters on bikes, you know, the ones that you hate".

I suppose that is how you get your own way, create division.

The writer article and the council have deviously avoided any mention of the real concerns about materials used, location of the works and environmental impact, instead focussing on the " challenge of the trail, because these adrenaline junkies are just being selfish.

Shameful money spending exercise, which will ruin a beautiful exercise and in a time when so many are in need.

Lazy journalism I'm afraid. No real attempt to speak to all concerned just reporting press releases verbatim. DCC have been happy with this route for many years at a time when it was shared with 4x4 and motorcycles so why only now has it decided it is unsafe and creating trespass. That is the real question to ask Liz.

Mountain bikers outraged at what they see as the taming of a classic Peak District route have managed to halt work on the track.

- This is not what they are outrage about. Read the campaign details before making a misleading statement like this.

Work carried out on Chapel Gate, below Rushup Edge, by Derbyshire County Council is out of character with the area and is destroying a challenging route used by bikers, walkers and horse riders, activists say.
- No. Chapel Gate and Rushup Edge are two different paths. You’re being misled by DCC – much in the same way that user groups were originally. The majority agree that Chapel Gate needed/needs fixing. The majority think that Rushup Edge does not.

After protests and a campaign supported by the British Mountaineering Council and the Peak District National Park Authority, the county council has suspended ‘roadworks’ on the track, which runs between Barber Booth and the Chapel-en-le-Frith road.
- DCC are doing the work under the banner of highways maintenance. There’s a TRO on the path so your ‘..’ is perhaps well placed. I’m not sure you intended it that way though

A spokesman for mountain bikers’ groups called the works ‘the curse of crushed gritstone’.
Ride Sheffield and Peak District MTB have been at the forefront of the campaign to halt the works on the track, which has been the scene of controversy for some time.
The route, an ancient packhorse track, is a byway open to all traffic but the national park authority introduced a permanent ban on its use by motor traffic at the beginning of the year. Theoretically, horses and carts can still legally use Chapel Gate.
- Theoretically unicyclists, skateboarders and roller bladers can too, but let’s be sensible here shall we about who the core users affected are.

Derbyshire County Council said the green lane is in a bad state of repair and parts of it are difficult to use for walkers and horse riders.
- See aforementioned TRO. It’s technically not a green lane anymore.

In a statement it said: “Currently, many people are unable to use Chapel Gate because of the rocky ’steps’ which have evolved due to damage over time.
- There’s that muddying of the Chapel Gate/Rushup Edge
again.

“We realise the Peak District national park is an area which is close to many people’s hearts and they feel very passionately, as we do, about its protection and maintenance.
“There will always be some people who are not happy with the work we do to maintain and repair our rights of way. Mountain bikers prefer challenging, rockier routes, whereas these might not be suitable for horse riders or walkers.
- Yet members of every one of these groups has spoken out against these works.

“But we have a legal responsibility to make sure the routes we look after can be enjoyed by everyone.”
- TRO surely affects this? It’s technically a bridleway now.

The council said it consulted the local access forum before starting the work.
- Inadequately. Perhaps the LAF is not representative.

But mountain bikers say they have not been consulted and are worried Chapel Gate will be transformed into a smooth route with no challenges for riders.
Derbyshire CC said: “Our inspections found the condition of Chapel Gate warranted attention. The poor condition of the track is likely to deter a wider range of users who are entitled to use it.
- Chapel Gate or Rushup Edge? What stats support this?

“Trespass is happening over neighbouring land, which we suspect is partly due to the poor condition of the track. We shouldn’t be encouraging trespass which may lead to difficulties in managing land which it passes through.
- The fence erected on the roman road at Hope Cross has worked quite well. Cheaper too.

“We are using gritstone sourced from a quarry which produces harder wearing stone than that available locally. We’re aiming to provide a surface that will blend with the area.
- Not using local materials. What will run off do to the environment?

“We’re covering over the stepped area. We realise that this of concern to some users. However we believe that the current condition of the route is reducing opportunities for other users. Furthermore, we wish to make this route available to reduce trespass on to neighbouring land.
“We will be carrying out some regulation to the surface further along the route to encourage water to run off.”
But the mountain biking organisations are claiming a small victory with the agreement to temporarily stop the maintenance works.
Ride Sheffield’s John Horscroft said the group had been invited to a meeting on 2 December with the council, along with the BMC and Friends of the Peak District. He said Derbyshire CC had also agreed to suspend work until at least 9 December.
He urged riders to complete an online survey to make their views known about Chapel Gate.
- All users too. We want representation.

It appears that the reporter for this article has sadly failed to do her research. She has published photos of the wrong area, she has failed to visit the area, gain first hand statements from any user group or relevant party and, as a result has produced a highly misleading article. I am disappointed by the standard of this article, in what is, usually, and interesting website.

To correct a few issues: the objections to the works have been raised by all user groups including the BMC, Peak District National Park, Friends of the Peak and individual members of the Ramblers and individual runners, walkers and horse riders. It is rare to get such a consensus to an issue so close to peoples' hearts. This is not a mountain biking issue, this is an issue to all people who enjoy the beautiful, unspoilt environment that the National Parks offer, not an urbanised, unsustainable trail on the top of a high moor exposed to all elements.

Secondly, a picture of a large area of water is featured. If user groups had been consulted we would have requested that this was the very first area to be tackled. This is on a flat section of land with footpath crossings. We would all welcome this being repaired and have offered to volunteer to help repair it, as we have done in other areas of the Park under the guidance of Peak Park Rangers. The council have failed to explain whether this area will be repaired, but given it is not in their description (there are no "rocky steps" here) it seemed unlikely.

Finally, this is a broader issue for all tax payers. Substantial (over half a million pounds in the last three years) expenditure has been made on these projects in Derbyshire. This is at the time of severe cuts to children's services, the vulnerable who require social care, libraries, school crossings etc. Derbyshire council gets a significant part of it's budget directly from the government and the rest from local residents. This is a public authority that has a duty to spend it's money in an efficient and transparent manner. Other works in the area (the Pennine Bridleway, the Eastern Moors partnership) have been conducted in a natural, sensitive and cost efficient manner and will be sustainable for many years. They were done with consultation with all user groups and have lead to a fantastic network of trails suitable for a range of users.

I would advise Liz Roberts to take a tour of the site, and to go herself and look at the fantastic work being done in the Peak Park, Eastern Moors and other bordering county councils in collaboration with hard working, dedicated public servants and volunteers before making such unfounded statements.

Strange article.

Photos are incorrect, ignores the fact that walkers, horse riders, runners and mountain bikers stand together in their opinions on this, and seems to try to make it all about troublesome bikers.

It seems to be entirely constructed to show DCC in a positive light, which given the way it ignored all user groups and until an outcry was raised intended even to ignore the Peak District National Park on the issue is wholly undeserved.

The best solution would probably be to remove responsibility for such tracks from DCC and place them with the National Park. DCC is only involved because the routes in question technically are covered by guidance and legislation applying to roads and highways - although motorised transport has been banned from them. The really strange thing about the whole situation is that it's entirely of DCC's making and could have been avoided with some commonsense and actual consultation.

I think Esther Hobson has summed up everything I would want to say on the content of the article.

The poorly researched nature of the piece does nothing to add credibility to this news portal as a valuable source of information, it is misleading, incorrect and divisive. Three things that will only serve to allow organisations to continue to run the National Parks for their own agenda rather than for all users.

As a resident of Derbyshire and the Peak Park, a payer of taxes to DCC and a local employer, I find that wasting money on projects such as this when critical social services are being cut is tantamount to deliberate incompetence.

The age old adage of ring fenced and committed spend is fatuous, so called ring fenced budgets are being cut and reallocated. Cut this spending and reallocate it to much needed services.

Just to reiterate what others have said here. The photo's used in the article are completely mis-leading as is the response from DCC.

Most of Chapel Gate IE the descent down to Edale shown in your first photograph, was 'repaired and re-surfaced' using tarmac road plains some time ago (2 years) after a very limited consultation process by DCC, and much to the horror of most user groups. Your photograph was taken before those repairs were implemented. It is now a stinking mess of tarmac which produces an oily run off during the rain and an unnatural smell during the warmer weather. A repeat of this is what everyone wants to avoid.

The top part of Chapel Gate and it's junction with Rushup Edge is shown in your second photograph and all the user groups agree that this does need drainage work and surfacing.

The section that DCC have started to repair is a channel of natural bedrock that does not suffer from drainage problems or erosion and is commonly known as Rushup Edge. Horse riders, walkers and mountain bikers alike ALL enjoy this section as a natural route through the peak district.

Years after the repair work to the Chapel Gate descent DCC have attempted to repair the natural section of Rushup Edge with inappropriate stone, and as far as I am aware they have neither confirmed or denied that the final surface will again be tarmac road plains.

What is particularly up setting as that DCC have attempted to proceed with these latest works under the umbrella of the previous limited consultation for the works on the Chapel Gate descent, and to my knowledge no user group or member of the public was expecting or notified of these works as there was no prior notice. DCC had even failed to properly close the route with a formal footpath closure notice and have since had to submit an 'emergency' closure. Even serving a proper closure notice would have given the public some notice that the works were due to take place and a chance to make comment.

To a draw a comparison it's like building a house in a field on one side of a hill then 2 years later trying to build another house on the other side of the hill using the 2 year old permission for the first one, and not a very good house at that!