Chapel Gate Peak Park TRO

[David Sparkes]

On Jan 24th the Peak Park authorised the making of a TRO closing Chapel Gate to recreational motorised vehicles.
They could not impose it immediately, as they have to wait for DCC to 'revoke' their TRO, imposed while maintenance work was carried out. Originally this was to run until June 2014, but in practice it was negated because DCC deliberately took the signs down when they had finished on site. This meant the DCC TRO was dormant, but could be wakened immediately they put the signs up again, if they found it necessary to revisit site. However, revocation takes the DCC TRO away completely, leaving the way open for the Peak Park to impose theirs.

DCC = Derbyshire County Council, the Highway Authority responsible for maintaining the roads.

I don't know exactly when the TRO will be effective, but if you want a last chance to drive Chapel Gate, do so quickly.
If you want to ask about when the signs go up, the contact is Mike Rhodes, Rights of Way team, Peak Park, 01629 816 289.
In case you aren't certain, the signs are circular with a red border, white centre background, with a front view of a car in the lower half, and a side view of a motorbike in the upper half. Sometimes referred to as a 'flying motorbike'.

Regards.

[David Sparkes]

Some local publicity in the Bakewell Today newspaper, repeated in the Matlock Mercury.

Trail riders question motive behind 4x4 bans in Edale and Chinley. Published on 06/02/2014 16:00.

The Trail Riders Fellowship has questioned the Peak District National Park Authority’s agenda, after it banned vehicles from using green lanes in Edale and Chinley last Friday.
Chapel Gate, a bridleway south west of Edale, and the Roych, a dirt track near Chinley, are both now subject to full traffic orders, which exclude trail bikes and four-by-fours.
The permanent legal orders relate to a 3.5 kilometre stretch of the Roych that is part of the Pennine Bridleway, and a three-kilometre stretch of Chapel Gate which skirts Rushup Edge.
The authority hopes the ban will safeguard the natural beauty and special characteristics of the landscapes and the amenity for other users.

The fellowship said it was “disappointed but not surprised” by the decision, which marks the public body’s second attempt to close the routes.
An order for the Roych was originally agreed in July, 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.
An earlier attempt to close Chapel Gate was ruled “illegal” and “irresponsible” by the High Court in 2012 and the trail was reopened.
Richard Simpson, of the fellowship, said that the audit, resources and performance committee, which coordinated the closure, was chaired by Christopher Pennell, who is also a gold Peak District guardian.

He said: “No lanes were closed by the authority prior to Mr Pennell’s appointment. The fellowship can only wonder at how a situation was allowed to arise 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. Peak residents should note that, although the authority 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. We are asking who is driving this agenda and what their motives might be.”

Christopher said that there were some 300 green lanes usable by motorised vehicles in the park but that both these routes crossed areas of outstanding natural beauty. He said: “Chapel Gate passes through wildlife areas with the highest protection designation in Europe and has historic interest as a pack horse route. We have visited the routes several times and have listened to arguments from all sides. On balance we have decided that the conservation of the natural beauty of these landscapes outweigh unrestricted recreational motorised use on them.”

A Readers comment.
Mr Pennell says there are about 300 green lanes usable by vehicles in the Peak Park. I don't believe it! When challenged on this amazing statement the Peak Park Authority were unable to provide a list of these 300 green lanes.
The Green Lane Association, who represent users of green lanes, believe there are only about 70 such green lanes in the Peak Park which are actually usable by vehicles such as trail bikes or land rovers, and Mr Pennell wants to restrict recreational use on 36 of these that are on his committee's list of sensitive routes. So, come on Mr Pennell, where are the rest of the 300 green lanes your web site says motorised vehicles can use? If you can't back up your statement with facts it should be withdrawn and an apology given.

Regards.

[Nigelw]

Can anyone provide any background on Mr. Pennell? I also wonder exactly what his motive are?

As for there being 300 green lanes in the Peaks, BOLLOX!!!

Anyone fancy doing a bit of PI work on the side, wonder if the RA has given him a good bung on this subject?

[David Sparkes]

When the Park Authority start issuing defensive Press Releases you can feel we are getting to them. Not a winning strategy on it's own, but what can be said on a public forum is limited. For instance, I don't believe CP will be getting anything financial in return for his effective performance as Chairman of the relative committee.

You might like this associated Facebook page, Peak District Green Lanes Allowance, which is inspired by the similarly named Peak District Green Lanes Alliance

EVERYONE should feel free to write to the Peak Park RoW Team asking for details of the 300 lanes. Those who asked for details originally have received a reply, I include relevant parts here so your fresh enquiry can be appropriately informed.:

The reference to the National Park having approximately 300 green lanes has featured on our website for some time – see www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/vehicles . The figure relates to the number of routes with either legal vehicular rights or the potential to carry legal vehicular rights (i.e. routes which are currently subject to a claim for vehicular rights and are used as such). The on-going classification work being conducted by the Highway Authorities means that this is necessarily always an approximate figure. There are seven Highway Authorities with boundaries which reach into the National Park and they maintain the records of the extent of the network and determine the legal status of routes. Approximately 200 of these routes with actual or potential vehicular rights are in the Derbyshire part of the Park. These routes may be Byways Open to All Traffic (BOATS) or unclassified routes (UCRs).

...

Despite the fact that the Authority has no legal obligation to maintain records of the availability of routes (and the responsibility to give guidance on legal usage remains with Highways Authorities), we recognise that it would be useful to map the extent, distribution and status of routes with possible vehicle rights across the National Park. In September officers reported to the Local Access Forum and to the ARP Committee that they intend to carry out this work and they will report further on this to the March meeting of this committee as they review their annual action plan.

You will notice that although the '300' claim has been on their website 'for some time' it was only in September 2013 that they felt they ought to do something about recording them.

Don't be taken in by their phrasing; they are NOT saying they will have completed the task by March 2014, merely that they will report back on 'progress so far'.

Thanks for showing an interest.