Erosion on environmentally sensitive parts of Chapel Gate
National park bosses have agreed to ban off-roaders from a centuries-old public highway as a ‘last resort’ to stop further damage.
A temporary order will make it illegal for 4×4s, trail-bikes, quads and other motorised vehicles to use Chapel Gate, under Rushup Edge near Edale in the Peak District.
The national park authority’s first experimental traffic regulation order will come into force for 18 months once a current Derbyshire County Council closure order, introduced for maintenance to the route, ends.
Chapel Gate forms part of an ancient route between Edale and Chapel-en-le-Frith and is at present a byway open to all traffic.
But the park authority said deep ruts, mud, water and exposed rocks are now deterring walkers, cyclists and horse-riders, and erosion has widened up to 12m as people deviate onto surrounding land with fragile wildlife habitats.
The 3km (2-mile) route crosses a landscape designated a special area of conservation, a special protection area and a site of special scientific interest.
Only one member of the national park authority’s audit, resources and performance committee today abstained, the rest voting in favour of the move.
Officials advised it as a last resort to halt further severe environmental damage.
Committee chair Christopher Pennell said: “We agree that time is needed for the landscape to recover and to establish whether that recovery is sustained over two growing seasons with motorised traffic excluded.”
Speaking in support of the 18-month ban were representatives of the Peak District Green Lane Alliance, Peak Horsepower, the Forum for Ancient Byways, Rocking the BOAT action group, and the Peak District Local Access Forum, an independent advisory group of walkers, climbers, cyclists, horse-riders and motorised users, which originally recommended the measure. No member of the public spoke against.
A six-week public consultation earlier this year resulted in 309 responses in favour of a temporary ban, and 207 against.
People in favour were concerned about danger, ecological damage, erosion, disturbance to wildness and tranquillity, pollution from noise and emissions, water run-off, and impact on agricultural access.
Those against argued that lack of maintenance had caused the current state of the route; motorised traffic was not the only cause; there were few legal off-road routes available to them; riders came from all over the country to ride Chapel Gate; they too wanted to experience wildness; riders were being unfairly discriminated against, and a ban would put pressure on other routes.
Access and rights of way manager Mike Rhodes said: “We are working hard to maintain a positive relationship with responsible recreational motor-users and we value the contribution of the Peak and Derbyshire Vehicle User Group in educating and informing drivers and riders.”
The umbrella group takes part in volunteer work parties and in joint Operation Blackbrook days with the police and national park rangers, talking to users at popular off-roading spots, offering leaflets and information.
Paul Roberts
03 June 2011Its the 4x4's who do the most damage. This experimental order should be to ban them, not Trail Bikes.
David Bailey
03 June 2011You need some education Paul. The damage was mainly done by water errosion which the PDNP has confirmed. I do agree not all damage has been due to weather and every motorised vehicle using the byway should take some responsibilty. A TRO if its to be placed should ban ALL motorised vehicles and not discriminate against "types" of motor vehicles.
David Sparkes
03 June 2011Although the Report and Appendices did not make this clear (and they can be criticised for that) the PDNPA officers at today's meeting made clear their real concern was 'displacement', that is, the widening of the track because people could not, or did not want to, pass down the main route of the track.
Start at http://tinyurl.com/5t76r8s for the Google Map Satellite view, but you may need an OS 1:50k map open as well, to follow the route. Use http://maps.the-hug.net/ if you want an online view
While it is clear from the Google Map Satellite view, and ground based photos, that this widening by displacement has taken place, no-one stated what the defined width of the route should be. If they cannot state a defined width (and I haven't looked at the definitive statement) then how can they say what is track widening, and what is people just using another part of the permitted track?
It is pretty obvious that the creation of alternative desire routes can be laid at the door of many different classes of users, including walkers and motorcyclists.
Again, not mentioned in the Report, was the aim of the experiment. As I heard it from the officers at the meeting, the aim is to let walkers and horse-riders use the 'easy to walk and ride' repaired route, without being scared off by the presence, or anticipation of, meeting motorised users on a narrow route, hollowed out by years of use and weather.
Again, not mentioned in the Report, was their apparent criteria of success. This appears to be the regeneration of plants over the current desire routes, because the walkers etc are no longer walking on them, but using the repaired track instead. The justification of the 18 months was that it covers 2 growing seasons. We must not forget to add the 6 months the extended DCC repair TRO that will have proceeded the TRO.
None of those three points are in writing, anywhere.
What is in writing, and I suggest anyone interested reads it, is the Ecological survey written before work started. You have to step over the writers opinion pieces, but in the main it's a factual report of the state of the track.
http://tinyurl.com/5upus3l takes you to the download point for the Report and appendices.
Next, and of even more significance, is the contractors report on completion of Phase 1 of the work. This is referenced on the Report, Page 8, section 30, as "Chapel Gate BOAT Phase 1 Repair Works 2011 Completion Report.". It's now Phase 1 because, having completed the work, it is blatantly obvious that there is more that needs to be done.
This, more than any DCC or PDNPA paper, clearly shows WHY 'something' needed to be done. Again, the writer is fixated with 'damage caused by motorised vehicles'. BUT as his pictures and captions towards the end of the report show, if they keep the water off the track bed there is no evidence of wheeled vehicles passing over the track. The 'damage ' the author refers to has been caused by the wheeled construction vehicles. These same vehicles leave no mark on the dry area of track. His fixation is to stop the wheeled vehicles, mine is to stop the water running down the track, so ALL USERS can use a dry track bed.
As far as I know, at the time of writing this, the Phase 1 completion report is not available online. Phone the PDNPA RoW team via 01629 816200 and ask request a copy.
The ace part is the each photo has the the OS GR and the facing direction recorded, so anyone can go back is 3, 6, 12, or 18 months and record how the scene has changed to create a Time Lapse record.
It seemed apparent me that few, if any, of the Councillors or other Members of the Public had read this Phase 1 Completion Report.
HTH