UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => get involved: access, environment, BMC => Topic started by: DAVETHOMAS90 on April 20, 2015, 02:40:23 pm
-
Anyone else been up over Derwent recently?
I was up there yesterday for a walk with a friend, and was appalled by "developments" to the path, which now resembles a yellow brick road.
I'm sure this will "blend in" over time, but it has been bulldozed through, with boulders ripped up and/or smashed in many places.
I really felt robbed of much of what appeals to me, of a walk over Derwent. One of my favourite runs is the classic Derwent loop, which descends along the top, from Back Tor to the Moscar sign, via Derwent Edge and Coach and Horses etc. The last bit always being a bit of a challenge when you're tired - but this has been flattened and ruined.
Part of the appeal to me of "wild places" is the inherent lack of convenience, the way we are forced to interact more with the environment, and lose ourselves, rather than trying to bend it to our will.
I felt disgusted. The photos don't do it justice really.
Dave T.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8804/17210002102_500117d585_z.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7698/17023937158_6d4204ba3c_z.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7661/17023944098_04edcc6b62_z.jpg)
-
I think that looks pretty good to be honest
-
Didn't reach as far as the Coach and Horses when I went up there some time before xmas, I think it petered out around the cross roads of tracks.
Looked a horrible mess then and far far worse now its been extended. Real shame, no doubt done in the name of "safe access" or such like.
-
I think that looks pretty good to be honest
Best/worst seen up close, in the context of what has been lost Dense. In time, I'm sure people will forget what was there before. There was no really bad erosion, probably because of the rocky terrain. This has been destroyed.
-
Didn't reach as far as the Coach and Horses when I went up there some time before xmas, I think it petered out around the cross roads of tracks.
Looked a horrible mess then and far far worse now its been extended. Real shame, no doubt done in the name of "safe access" or such like.
Quite. And so unnecessary. I feel worried about "management" of other areas too, e.g. Stanage.
-
I think that looks pretty good to be honest
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5464/17211588761_6460e9d892_b.jpg)
And, of course, others will consider it an improvement. But in many ways, something has already been lost, when we over-manage the land, and utilitise it.
-
What scares me is it may now be seen as fair game for "green laners"?
-
the high concentration of yellow-brick-roaders will act as a deterent for green-laners
-
Click your heels lagers.
-
Anyone else been up over Derwent recently?
I was up there yesterday for a walk with a friend, and was appalled by "developments" to the path, which now resembles a yellow brick road.
I'm sure this will "blend in" over time, but it has been bulldozed through, with boulders ripped up and/or smashed in many places.
I really felt robbed of much of what appeals to me, of a walk over Derwent. One of my favourite runs is the classic Derwent loop, which descends along the top, from Back Tor to the Moscar sign, via Derwent Edge and Coach and Horses etc. The last bit always being a bit of a challenge when you're tired - but this has been flattened and ruined.
Part of the appeal to me of "wild places" is the inherent lack of convenience, the way we are forced to interact more with the environment, and lose ourselves, rather than trying to bend it to our will.
I felt disgusted. The photos don't do it justice really.
Dave T.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8804/17210002102_500117d585_z.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7698/17023937158_6d4204ba3c_z.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7661/17023944098_04edcc6b62_z.jpg)
Its pretty fucking awful
-
I wonder what consultation was done on this before the contractors got stuck in? It's been a regular occurence in the peak with the sanitising of rights of such as Stanage causeway, Rushup Edge, the track down to Stoney and now this.
Agree Dave that it will blend a bit in time but the materials used appear to be completely out of keeping with the local substrate. It will also without fail encourage more mountain bikers to head up there. It also ruins as you say one of the nicest sections of trail running about. :(
-
yes, but it's opened up the area to wheelchair bound trail runners
-
excuse my narrow mindedness ;) Hopefully we might even see a few strollers and double width buggies up there soon.
-
Its pretty fucking awful
[/quote]
:agree:
That about sums it up.
-
I wonder what consultation was done on this before the contractors got stuck in? It's been a regular occurence in the peak with the sanitising of rights of such as Stanage causeway, Rushup Edge, the track down to Stoney and now this.
..the materials used appear to be completely out of keeping with the local substrate. It will also without fail encourage more mountain bikers to head up there. It also ruins as you say one of the nicest sections of trail running about. :(
:agree:
I wounder if we can encourage closer collaboration and consultation? I appreciate we're very much a minority group still, but together with the fell running community, I'm sure we'd be able to find a way to influence decision making to some degree. Excuse my naivety and relative ignorance.
-
Looks like crushed gritstone aggregate to me, so as appropriate as is available. It'll weather in eventually.
I'll make some enquiries on the consultation side. The last erosion control on this path was done with slabs wasn't it?
-
If I remember correctly there are sections with slabs further along as you get towards Back Tor.
-
Hmm...
whats the point of this. Is there an official reason/memo/letter/announcement? Is this reason based in any sort of sensible research or conjured up from the imagination of an official?
MrsTT's brother has to get about in a powered wheelchair, so I can see how tracks like this can expand the amenity value to a wider group of people.. Its the kind of thing he'd be quite happy zooming up. But its fuck ugly - and surely significantly reduces its value overall? Also, I doubt this would be good enough for many powered chairs - it looks too rough and those rock steps would be a no-no (it hasn't even eroded yet either..) - so I'm left wondering what the point actually is.. who is this for?
Wheres the espresso van? (thats a joke btw)...
-
Looks like crushed gritstone aggregate to me, so as appropriate as is available. It'll weather in eventually.
I'll make some enquiries on the consultation side. The last erosion control on this path was done with slabs wasn't it?
If you do, maybe you could get in touch with John Horscroft or various people in Ride Sheffield/PeakMTB (I don't know how to link, sorry.) Heavy handed path maintenance is going on all over the Peak and they've been trying to get Derbyshire CC and various other land managers to engage with users and consider various options before plowing big motorways across the countryside.
-
Looks like it should be visible from space.
I'll make some enquiries on the consultation side. The last erosion control on this path was done with slabs wasn't it?
Slabs further north, towards Back Tor.
Would consultation have been a requirement here? As I understand it, the path is not a Public Right of Way, and it's on private land (albeit land that falls under CRoW).
More info here. (http://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/news/path-restoration-protects-vital-moorlands) Also note the specific mention of consultation requirement in regard to the Cutthroat BW. And not great news that DCC will be involved in this BW resurfacing work.
As an aside, similar 'yellow brick road' work was done on Cut Gate (a RoW) in about 2008-ish, and it's weathered in OK up there. Although it wasn't anything like as extensive as this (2.5km!), and I imagine Cut Gate gets far less traffic so there were fewer eyes to offend.
Be interested to know more about the background.
-
For anyone who hasn't been up there yet, the section down from Coach & Horses is shocking. It's effectively been quarried through. Sorry, I wish I'd taken a photo. The level of destruction is shocking, with huge boulders torn up etc.
The joke about the espresso van isn't inappropriate. The people hiring out the MTBs will be happy.
-
Fuck me it's a path through the countryside that looks absolutely fine, a good job IMO. So what you're saying Dave is things should be left as they are as long as climbers and fell runners can get to see these wild places? I doubt very much it was built for electric wheelchair users tomtom more to stop erosion and keep people using one path.
-
Looks like it should be visible from space.
I'll make some enquiries on the consultation side. The last erosion control on this path was done with slabs wasn't it?
Slabs further north, towards Back Tor.
Would consultation have been a requirement here? As I understand it, the path is not a Public Right of Way, and it's on private land (albeit land that falls under CRoW).
More info here. (http://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/news/path-restoration-protects-vital-moorlands) Also note the specific mention of consultation requirement in regard to the Cutthroat BW. And not great news that DCC will be involved in this BW resurfacing work.
As an aside, similar 'yellow brick road' work was done on Cut Gate (a RoW) in about 2008-ish, and it's weathered in OK up there. Although it wasn't anything like as extensive as this (2.5km!), and I imagine Cut Gate gets far less traffic so there were fewer eyes to offend.
Be interested to know more about the background.
Didn't realise that consultation isn't required if its on private land and not a designated RoW, cheers Cofe. Still makes me wonder if they considered wider user group consultation though to ensure that the work being done was both known and took on board differing users views.
I do believe that over time it will become visually less intrusive and almost certainly allow the surrounding wider tracks to regenerate (you only need look at the section from Cutthroat Bridge to Whinston Lee Tor to see how wide it "can" get), but I'm still firmly of the belief that works of this sort could be carried out more sympathetically. I am also very keen to see just how many mountain bikers see it as now even fairer game to ride it (although I have been known to seek out less popular cheeky trails in the past myself).
-
Got to say, my first thought when I saw that was really positive. Yeah, it's kind of ugly now (but not that bad), but it'll settle down. It also would be another great path that the missus can get up on her off-road handbike. Except it's not a bridleway is it. Just hope we can pass her trike off as a wheelchair if anyone complains!
As for getting a powered chair or scooter up there. that would be one hell of a mission, surely there's some big drainage ditches across it that would be tricky, you'd need a Boma 7 to handle that.
-
Fuck me it's a path through the countryside that looks absolutely fine, a good job IMO. So what you're saying Dave is things should be left as they are as long as climbers and fell runners can get to see these wild places? I doubt very much it was built for electric wheelchair users tomtom more to stop erosion and keep people using one path.
Well done Dense. You can claim your "Armchair Hill Walker" status now. Something to aspire to, I guess?
Have you been up there to have a look?
No, my concern - which isn't fully conveyed by the photos, is the way the path has been forced through areas, with major disruption to the landscape in several areas.
I'm not a great fan of making access easy for all, but I do not feel my stance is an elitist one. My personal feeling, and I appreciate that this is not an argument, is that it is the very lack of convenience which makes natural places valuable and appealing. I.e. why we go there.
Also, my concern is not merely over "how it looks", as it will blend in over time.
The points you raise about erosion control sound very speculative to me, rather than a considered appraisal of what was there beforehand, and whether or not remedial works were required. In my view, and experience over time, I'd say they were not required.
It seems inappropriate to speculate over reasons/excuses/policy behind the decisions to carry out the work, but there does seem to be a worrying trend.
You are clearly not worried or concerned, but I really don't understand your motivation for ridiculing the opinions of those who are. I have already acknowledged in my earlier post, that there will be those who are not offended by the new path, and you are clearly one of those; I'm not going to attack you for it. By the same token, I feel it can only be responsible for the voice of those who are concerned about our use of, and impact on natural spaces, to be adequately heard.
-
Agree Dave that it will blend a bit in time but the materials used appear to be completely out of keeping with the local substrate. It will also without fail encourage more mountain bikers to head up there. It also ruins as you say one of the nicest sections of trail running about. :(
....far from it fella. The last thing most mountain bikers want is sanitised trails. Most MBers want natural trails that fit in with the landscape. This doesn't....
-
Isn't that the big elephant in the room here? On most landscapes/surfaces, especially peak moorland, traffic from bikes in any kind of volume is likely in the mid-long term to require trail repair/maintenance that will probably render the path unappetizing to riders?
-
My armchair hill walker status? Cheers Dave that almost feels like a compliment. It looks to me like the path has been laid down over where the existing "path" was. Tho that's from memory, 310 days on the grit in 01 apparently. They may be trying to spread the load from stanage and burbage, which in summer is disgusting to see cars parked on grass verges, here there and everywhere. Tho this will also not be in your thinking since it's entirely speculative.
As for your statement of being the voice of people to be adequately heard? You made your stance more than clear in every single one of your posts on this subject. I, for one, don't think it looks anything like as bad as you're making out. Lord lets not forget the controversy of wood chips being used at the trackside boulder, curbar.
-
Just to add to what Cofe has said, the work is being carried out under the auspices of Moors For The Future and funded by Natural England. The spec was for no imported material, which has to be the preferred option, but it means that the standard of work has to be very high as it effectively means exhuming the sub-soil and putting it on top. I think I'm not speaking out of turn to say that once the work had commenced, certain concerns about the scale of the path and the removal of boulders were passed on to the contractors. Let's just say that, in my opinion, it hasn't been done in the most sympathetic fashion given the remoteness of the location and the landscape in which it sits. Of course, it also begs the question, what happens to Cutthroat Bridge path as that's next on the agenda and a similar level of engineering would be not to the liking of either the ramblers, MBers or anyone else I'm guessing. The idea for that was to only use on-site material but that's been scuppered because it's a scheduled Ancient Monument, so it looks like they'll be importing crushed gritstone leading to very real concerns that we'll end up with another Stanage Causeway....
-
Agree Dave that it will blend a bit in time but the materials used appear to be completely out of keeping with the local substrate. It will also without fail encourage more mountain bikers to head up there. It also ruins as you say one of the nicest sections of trail running about. :(
....far from it fella. The last thing most mountain bikers want is sanitised trails. Most MBers want natural trails that fit in with the landscape. This doesn't....
Well everytime I'm up there, I see a shitload of them cycling illegally across it.
-
I think I agree with Dense on this. It's there for everyone, it will weather in I expect and let's be realistic; if you want it looking all natural it would be covered in trees. The Peak is a honey pot site. Climbers are passionate about the place, including me, but it's not a SSSI that needs to be treated with lid gloves. I'm sure there are a lot of people who are really pleased about it.
-
Are these areas not SSSI's or of such like?
ah - just seen Andys post.
-
Do you even know what a motorway is? ?????
-
Do you even know what a motorway is? ?????
sadly I have 25000 miles a year of motorway education...
-
That question was meant for the OP with tongue firmly in cheek incase it wasn't obvious
-
That question was meant for the OP with tongue firmly in cheek incase it wasn't obvious
;)
-
Agree Dave that it will blend a bit in time but the materials used appear to be completely out of keeping with the local substrate. It will also without fail encourage more mountain bikers to head up there. It also ruins as you say one of the nicest sections of trail running about. :(
....far from it fella. The last thing most mountain bikers want is sanitised trails. Most MBers want natural trails that fit in with the landscape. This doesn't....
I hope that's the case, I do a fair bit of biking myself so I get the attraction of technical trails but I suspect it my lure the odd biker off the usual loop too. Time will tell and I hope I'm proven wrong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Hmmm I am with Dense and failing to understand the fuss. This upgraded path looks similar in construction and width to the standard for popular trails in provincial parks here in BC. Seems to me the problem is purely an aesthetic one ... that the new material stands out in the open moorland terrain. Here that's less of an issue as vegetation is kind of vigorous (temperate rain forest).
Please read the posts, at least. Or go and have a look for yourself perhaps; I get the feeling that a lot of people saying "it looks fine to me" are expressing their opinion based solely on the photos I've posted.
The descent from C&H to Whinstone Lee Tor has been pretty much blasted through, ruining some technical terrain, but not withstanding that, unnecessary and unsympathetic to the landscape. Not particularly to do with aesthetics.
It's good to hear the opinion of those who feel it's fine, but there will always be those who aren't particularly bothered, and their view will probably be a less critical one. To those who have expressed a positive opinion, I would ask, is your motivation merely to trump the thread?
There are other concerns too, for instance, changes in management philosophy regarding the "upkeep" of Stanage.
I'll try to go back for more photos soon.
-
From Twitter:
Conservefor Ltd
Oct 23
Conservefor Ltd @conservefor
Whinstone Lee Tor multi-user path is coming together nicely, the new stone pitched section looks fantastic, great job
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7672/17040456468_ee8b27555a_b.jpg)
-
My opinion is not merely to trump the thread Dave, and asking people who don't agree with you to read your posts is a little condescending. I've read your posts and don't agree with them. You also said "I get the feeling that a lot of people saying it looks fine to me are expressing their opinion based solely on the photos I've posted" is that some kind of joke? What else are we supposed to be basing our opinions of how it looks on? The power of imagination?
I've never been to Venice, looks nice from pics.
-
I've never been to Venice, looks nice from pics.
I heard it smells bad
-
I've never been to Venice, looks nice from pics.
I heard it smells bad
Yup. It'd make much more sense to cover over their open sewers canals and then you could drive around and keep the sanitation from view...
-
But the point is it looks nice
-
Bloody hell, some of these responses leave me scratching my head! You make it sound as though we're discussing a suburban park, not the Peak District. Questions we need to ask. Are we happy to see more and more paths in the Peak upgraded to this kind of scale? That has been the direction of travel for some time largely at the behest of local authority Rights of Way Officers who love a bit of engineering - it's easy and cheap to blast through in the way they've done on Derwent Edge. I understand the call for increased access for those with limited mobility, but how far does that go? Do we flatten and widen trails throughout the Peak fundamentally altering the character of the landscape? I'm not sure that most users would be happy with that kind of one size fits all approach. It's like installing bolt-on-holds on a few classic Peak boulder problems just so anyone can climb them!
-
Bloody hell, some of these responses leave me scratching my head! You make it sound as though we're discussing a suburban park, not the Peak District. Questions we need to ask. Are we happy to see more and more paths in the Peak upgraded to this kind of scale? That has been the direction of travel for some time largely at the behest of local authority Rights of Way Officers who love a bit of engineering - it's easy and cheap to blast through in the way they've done on Derwent Edge. I understand the call for increased access for those with limited mobility, but how far does that go? Do we flatten and widen trails throughout the Peak fundamentally altering the character of the landscape? I'm not sure that most users would be happy with that kind of one size fits all approach. It's like installing bolt-on-holds on a few classic Peak boulder problems just so anyone can climb them!
Very, very well said.
+1
-
You make it sound as though we're discussing a suburban park, not the Peak District. Questions we need to ask. Are we happy to see more and more paths in the Peak upgraded to this kind of scale?
Exactly, that's the nub of it. BC for example has a bit more National Park to footle around with, the Peak is a very limited resource.
I don't like what I see in the photos on the whole, but will have to go and look and properly before forming a clear view.
I think Dave's point that the photos may not be a fairest basis for judgment is sound enough but for those not local they'll have to do.
honestly, I'd say thanks to Dave for publicising this - and Shark too with this sticker thing (for good or ill). Best to be aware of developments, isn't it?
-
Bloody hell, some of these responses leave me scratching my head! You make it sound as though we're discussing a suburban park, not the Peak District. Questions we need to ask. Are we happy to see more and more paths in the Peak upgraded to this kind of scale? That has been the direction of travel for some time largely at the behest of local authority Rights of Way Officers who love a bit of engineering - it's easy and cheap to blast through in the way they've done on Derwent Edge. I understand the call for increased access for those with limited mobility, but how far does that go? Do we flatten and widen trails throughout the Peak fundamentally altering the character of the landscape? I'm not sure that most users would be happy with that kind of one size fits all approach. It's like installing bolt-on-holds on a few classic Peak boulder problems just so anyone can climb them!
Very, very well said.
+1
That's pretty much how I feel. There's some sort of interesting philosophical debate about what countryside means to people - and that it's a human modified landscape anyway etc.. But I'm too knackered to think this evening. I need a g&t and watch some car chases on the idiot lamp.
-
Hopefully, a lot of people won't have to think too much when they view the worst of it, which is probably the section down towards Whinstone Lee Tor. This is the section where the most excavation work has taken place. Sorry for not getting photos of this.
I do feel saddened by some of the responses, particularly those that seem to be an attack on the opinion and feelings I've expressed.
We need everyone's views. I would have thought, given the vitriol expressed on the donkey mark thread, there would have been less complacent approval. Clearly, opinion is quite polarised between those that apparently care little, and those that care very much, but I'm somewhat at a loss as regards the real purpose for challenging the views of those who find this work unnecessarily destructive.
Let's be honest, some of us would no doubt prefer an unmetalled road up to Detwent Edge, and those responsible for decisions on management of the Peak Park probably have to do a lot of juggling when considering what interests to preserve etc.
I'm concerned about what seems to be something of a trend towards more aggressive management, "access for all" decisions etc; there does seem to be a change in policy/philosophy. In what way do contractors tender for the work? What criteria do they have to consider?
In this case, i feel that mistakes have been made. It's been really quite hard to convey the sense of loss i felt up there the other day.. At the time, i also made the analogy with management of inner city parkland.
Thanks for everyone's views.
-
Sure, discreet erosion prevention should be the priority. Whether that has been the outcome here or not isn't clear, hence my not rushing to judgment.
If park land is not being preserved as effectively as it could be the limited area of the peak amplifies the significance.
In many ways we all need to get more involved in its future management given the challenges of competing user interests and financial challenges.
-
Yes, difficult to know what the purpose of the work was at the moment. Was going to do some phoning around today to find out a bit more.
Looking through some of the Twitter feed from the contractor, sounds as though it was just to make the trail easier.
:shrug:
-
I've emailed the contractor and asked for a guideline figure for how much it would cost to make Sloper Traverse a bit easier in warm weather
-
Yes, difficult to know what the purpose of the work was at the moment.
More info here. (http://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/news/path-restoration-protects-vital-moorlands)
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) are designated for their special vegetation and wildlife, and the aim of path restoration is to protect the natural habitats surrounding the route from erosion and disturbance.
Matthew Scott-Campbell, who manages the Private Lands Project, said: “Whinston Lee Tor affords magnificent views over the countryside, and it’s great that the landowner and tenant provide this path so that people can get out and enjoy it, but its wildlife habitats need to be protected from the inevitable wear and tear that this brings.
“We’re glad to be working with the landowner, tenant and Natural England to bring this 2,500-metre stretch up to a condition that will enable people to continue to enjoy these magnificent landscapes while minimising the environmental damage.”
Ginny Hinton, Natural England Team Leader, East Midlands said “It’s great that one project can provide many benefits; repair of important peat and vegetation, less disturbance for wildlife, a great path for walkers and a better landscape without scars.”
It's certainly dressed up as conservation, whether or not that's the real reason for the work. The significant foot traffic the path gets had meant the line of the path above WLT had was much wider and had moved several metres to the side over the course of a few hundred metres, trampling quite a bit of heather in the process. I.e. people not following 'the path'. Maybe this was a trigger?
I still find the private land/no RoW thing quite interesting in relationship to the work, and the potential implications for other paths in the Peak/elsewhere.
-
Whats fucking odd about this path is its construction. If you go to the Lakes, or the Pennine way for that matter - the path is re-inforced sympathetically with the local environment. Making steps out of local rocks - using large stones/flags of the same type of rock so it isnt a boggy mess of a path, but also blends into the surroundings.
This just looks like a really shit cheap job.
FFS, its the Peak - its a National Park - it looks more like an old railway line!
-
It's been a while since I've been up there but I'm firmly in the 'ugh' camp. I'm struggling to think of the overwhelming problem that needed fixing, and one of the attractions of that area was that it was a bit awkward to get to and a little bit rugged. We're all part of the problem and we all wear stuff out walking, running, biking, scratching around on the rocks, but I'm a little bit sad at the solution.
-
Just had a quick look through the contractors timeline on twitter and it's pretty apparent to me as to how its ended up as it has looking at their other work. It appears they do a significant amount of work doing FC trails, mountain bike trails and such like which is inevitably built for particular type of traffic and usage. Quite often it also tends to be hidden in forests too which makes it visually less intrusive.
The problem therefore (in part from my perspective at least) is that they haven't really modified their trail building approach to take account of the open landscape and surroundings. though having said that there is a photo of a section of the Great Glen Way on their feed which is just as bad as what we see here. I am sure its technically very competent and well executed trail building and more than fit for purpose from an engineering perspective, but I just don't like it.
-
The cynic might suggest that the landowner is keen for the path to be as friendly as possible in the hope it dissuades folk from exercising their rights under CRoW and tramping across his grouse moor.
As Cofe said, it's an interesting one. I'll be keen to check it out first hand. From the pics it looks like the most sympathetic materials have been used (but broken grit always looks bad initially), but that the works have been over the top.
-
What's a "Green laner"?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACeVbRsSMk0
-
What's a "Green laner"?
Oh my... use the search function to look up a thread on the Stanage Causeway and see the arguments...
I dare not revisit that thread...
-
Surely that thread's been locked in a lead box and buried deep in the salt flats :no:
-
What's a "Green laner"?
google for images of "green laning" and you'll get a not very pretty idea of what's involved
-
Some great contributions to the thread here, in my opinion, and some really good information.
Again, it goes without saying, everyone's opinion is entirely valid - whether for or against - however strongly I or others may feel. Anyone wishing to express their own thoughts and feelings about how areas of the Peak Park is managed, surely has a right to be heard.
For me, this development brought to the fore concerns I have about possible changes in the way the Peak Park is managed, possible changes in priority or policy too, and how readily this might be open to challenge or influence by members of the public using the land.
How much do management decisions really reflect the views - on balance - of the public, and how much are decisions skewed towards commercial considerations?
The other thread about use of snares (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,25766.msg485779/topicseen.html#new) does more to highlight these issues for me.
-
I agree with comments about how the new path does not fit in with the natural beauty of the landscape and question whether such a large scale scheme was necessary at all.
Natural England is the government body in charge of preserving our wild moorlands through SSSI, SPA legislation etc. They approved this scheme with High Level Stewardship scheme money, so this path was built with public money, our taxes paid for it.
NE do not seem to be looking at the wider picture of how all these path improvements, shooting tracks and existing routes all add together. Dave T is posting a couple of pictures for me of roads built within the last year. The track with green matting is at Cut Gate/Mickleden Beck near Langsett and was intended for conservation, but in fact provides access to a line of shooting butts, this was built with public money. The other track is near Strines - Hollingdale plantation and was supoosed to be a repair to a rutted quad bike track, but looks like a new road to me.
If you looked "from Space" at the Derwent edge/Strines area what you see now is a network of tracks and roads, many constructed of the bright yellow aggregate. Any sense of wilderness is fast disappearing. Bob
-
I agree with comments about how the new path does not fit in with the natural beauty of the landscape and question whether such a large scale scheme was necessary at all.
Natural England is the government body in charge of preserving our wild moorlands through SSSI, SPA legislation etc. They approved this scheme with High Level Stewardship scheme money, so this path was built with public money, our taxes paid for it.
NE do not seem to be looking at the wider picture of how all these path improvements, shooting tracks and existing routes all add together. Dave T is posting a couple of pictures for me of roads built within the last year. The track with green matting is at Cut Gate/Mickleden Beck near Langsett and was intended for conservation, but in fact provides access to a line of shooting butts, this was built with public money. The other track is near Strines - Hollingdale plantation and was supoosed to be a repair to a rutted quad bike track, but looks like a new road to me.
If you looked "from Space" at the Derwent edge/Strines area what you see now is a network of tracks and roads, many constructed of the bright yellow aggregate. Any sense of wilderness is fast disappearing. Bob
Thanks Bob for giving us so much more information about this.
Your remarks about the wider picture not being looked at seem to reflect an ongoing trend.
The pictures are:
1st Pic with green matting is MIckleden beck Langsett:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7794/17377766621_2c187fcb01_z.jpg)
2nd pic is Hollingdale plantation, Strines:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7718/17376137652_8bc69f735e_b.jpg)
-
Do you know if that green matting is permanent or is it there for a shoot, or for one off access. Looks like it'll be lethal on a bike.
If they were doing this work to protect the environment and not just to assist in their own access I could sort of understand it, but they're hardly overused, trashed tracks as it is compaired to others.
-
Green matting looks like a geotextile used to stop the aggregate just sinking into the soft ground.
-
Doesn't look like it's on the Cut Gate BW, or any other RoW up there. Looks to be down and west of the BW?
-
Hmm, worrying. I was aware of this happening in Scotland but not in the Peak so much.
The root of the problem is the neutering of NE by the previous and current government - instead of being nature's advocate their role has been redefined to deliver services and satisfaction to landowners.
-
Doesn't look like it's on the Cut Gate BW, or any other RoW up there. Looks to be down and west of the BW?
I think you're right, it doesn't look like any section of the BW I recognise, it looks further west as you say looking back up towards Outer Edge/Howden Edge.
-
If they were doing this work to protect the environment and not just to assist in their own access I could sort of understand it, but they're hardly overused, trashed tracks as it is compaired to others.
Quite. The tracks/paths weren't trashed. What was there before has been trashed.
Hopefully I'll be able to get up to Derwent again soon.
Great to have the information from Blackhole about this.
-
Hmm, worrying. I was aware of this happening in Scotland but not in the Peak so much.
The root of the problem is the neutering of NE by the previous and current government - instead of being nature's advocate their role has been redefined to deliver services and satisfaction to landowners.
:agree:
Pretty much.
Or as is the way with these things, anyone else who'll endorse their position.
Usual checks and balances have been lost in the process.
-
The track with green matting is at Cut Gate/Mickleden Beck near Langsett and was intended for conservation, but in fact provides access to a line of shooting butts, this was built with public money.
Do we know what it was intended to conserve? Looks like it's only for access to the grouse butts. Was this defo public money?
-
The track with green matting is at Cut Gate/Mickleden Beck near Langsett and was intended for conservation, but in fact provides access to a line of shooting butts, this was built with public money.
Do we know what it was intended to conserve? Looks like it's only for access to the grouse butts. Was this defo public money?
As I understand it, yes.
Refer back to the information from blackhole.
-
From my semi work dealings with NE they seem to have some slightly out there ideas - I wonder how closely they are steered by the Govt...
Personally I think this type of path is inappropriate in most settings...
-
The track with green matting is at Cut Gate/Mickleden Beck near Langsett and was intended for conservation, but in fact provides access to a line of shooting butts, this was built with public money.
Do we know what it was intended to conserve? Looks like it's only for access to the grouse butts. Was this defo public money?
As I understand it, yes.
Refer back to the information from blackhole.
I did. Doesn't answer my questions.
I'd like to understand more about how public money is used to create or 'maintain' paths/tracks (i.e not existing RoWs) on private land. Derwent Edge is not a Public RoW. This green matted track in Mickleden certainly isn't. And the track up from Holling Dale isn't (if it's where I think it is). All are on CRoW land I think, but land in private ownership. Has the public pot funded this lot?
-
I don't know the specifics here but the I'm sure any savvy estate will be able to justify installing shooting tracks as conservation. As DT's link shows, it's not too hard to show that management for grouse improves numbers of some other birds too, therefore anything that aids shooting grouse is good news surely?
-
That would be depressing.
-
Which species of birds? Certainly not raptors, all I can imagine doing any better is meadow pipits?
-
It's not really surprising that aggressively suppressing predators increases numbers of many ground-nesting birds.
Figure 3: Likelihood of the occurrence of breeding birds on moorland managed for grouse moors. Figures above 1.0 indicate higher likelihood of presence
(http://www.gwct.org.uk/media/193956/Fig3.gif?width=500&height=330&crop=true) (http://www.gwct.org.uk/research/species/birds/red-grouse/grouse-moor-survey/)
-
I'll try to answer the questions about the new tracks and funding.
Cofe (reply 19) posted a link to Moors for the future, about Derwent Motorway, which says "with funding from Natural England's Higher Level Stewardship scheme", this is essentially a government grant. Other examples of this type of funding are the Kinder restoration project - funded by HLS grant and united utilities. (Landowners get ongoing funding from HLS which is part of EU Common Agricultural Policy, in addition there might be grants for specific projects like the 2 above). Anybody has more specific knowledge, be great to hear it, though likely to be a bit anoraky.
The green matted track crosses the cut gate bridleway at 194 976, where a vague track is marked on the latest Harvey map. The photo is looking west, 100 metres downhill from the bridleway. The matted section is over the top of this eroded/rutted track. In the area where it crosses the bridleway, the surfacing is crushed aggregate, presumably because the gradient is around 30%. I do have a photo of this if anyone wants to see it.
Funding for green matted track - I got the info that it is a HLS grant (public money) from an email by a conservation body who have concerns, they'd obviously asked NE about the funding - as a government body NE is publicly accountable and you'd get this info either by a simple email or at last resort by a freedom of information request.
What is it supposed to be conserving - my understanding is that it is there to give access to restore bare peat (as in Kinder etc), but at the top of the track the moor is well vegetated with various grasses.
Hollingdale track - this is privately funded as far as I know but as I said, looks like a new road not a repair to me.
Benefits of grouse shooting on other birds - a massive and controversial area - generally shooters say waders do better eg Golden Plover, as these birds like the burnt areas. Anti shooters say burning is an eco disaster (it is now stopped on kinder and bleaklow) and also point to decimation of raptor populations (birds of prey).Still more info needed from me? Bob
-
That's great Bob. I might have to head over Cut Gate soon and have a look.
Interesting about the burning. The landowner was burning up on Ash Cabin Flat near Redmires not so long back.
-
Might have been Pickles sniggling that Cofe?
-
I think he stopped all that after his mum caught him with soot on his shoes.
-
I think it was the stench of diesel that got him caught
-
That's a fantastic contribution from blackhole. Very comprehensive.
-
Clocked this on the way to the Cowper Stone the other day, seems to contrast with the bulldozing on Derwent Edge as it appears to have gone round the in situ rocks....
(http://i.imgur.com/9dtdoHe.jpg)
-
that reminds me, I must get a bigger monitor
-
that reminds me, I must get a bigger monitor
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5445/17357976806_d6598b2082_b.jpg)
There you go. Cheaper than a new monitor :)
Clearly a completely different approach, but also far more appropriate erosion control? Whichever way you look at it, there is just so much of this work going on out there at the moment.
-
Clearly a completely different approach, but also far more appropriate erosion control? ..
.. As in, although still ugly and unfinished, there are some areas near the Cowperstone where erosion is clearly a problem, and this seems a genuine attempt to remedy it.
-
that reminds me, I must get a bigger monitor
Looks fine here...
(http://ernestlmartin.com/images/siemens-large-monitor.jpg)
:P
P.S. - Thanks Dave.
-
Clearly a completely different approach, but also far more appropriate erosion control? ..
.. As in, although still ugly and unfinished, there are some areas near the Cowperstone where erosion is clearly a problem, and this seems a genuine attempt to remedy it.
The Cowperstone is of course on land owned and managed for the public by the national park, with stakeholder consultation and input, and in general excellent staff. So I'd be surprised if they couldn't manage a better job than a shooting estate. It does highlight, though, that even the best done work is still going to be a bit ugly in the short term. I suspect also - and this may be the nub of the issue - that a laid path feels less 'wild' than one created by foot erosion. Both are human activity but it is the intent to change the landscape that I think is the stumbling block. With time this should lessen as the stone wears in and the vegetation recovers back up to the edges - think of the Plantation path for instance - but we do need to step back a bit and decide whether erosion control or a fairly nebulous concept of wildness is more important.
-
that reminds me, I must get a bigger monitor
Looks fine here...
etc
:P
P.S. - Thanks Dave.
Very good :)
Looks fine from here:
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8880/17389724271_6e984a72c8_c.jpg)
-
Clearly a completely different approach, but also far more appropriate erosion control? ..
.. As in, although still ugly and unfinished, there are some areas near the Cowperstone where erosion is clearly a problem, and this seems a genuine attempt to remedy it.
The Cowperstone is of course on land owned and managed for the public by the national park, with stakeholder consultation and input, and in general excellent staff. So I'd be surprised if they couldn't manage a better job than a shooting estate. It does highlight, though, that even the best done work is still going to be a bit ugly in the short term. I suspect also - and this may be the nub of the issue - that a laid path feels less 'wild' than one created by foot erosion. Both are human activity but it is the intent to change the landscape that I think is the stumbling block. With time this should lessen as the stone wears in and the vegetation recovers back up to the edges - think of the Plantation path for instance - but we do need to step back a bit and decide whether erosion control or a fairly nebulous concept of wildness is more important.
:no:
I think you're avoiding the real issue here JB.
This thread isn't about whether or not footpaths are put down, where there are genuine conservation concerns, or even the aesthetics.
It's about whether those questions are bypassed - resulting in further loss and damage - and decisions made under the guise of "conservation", for the benefit of the landowner, using public money too - which ought properly be directed to address areas of real environmental concern.
I feel incredulous about your reference to the "nebulous concept of wildness" :thumbsdown:
That's the sort of language used to justify any development - and dismiss the impact.
I'm going to go away and explode quietly somewhere.
-
This thread isn't about whether or not footpaths are put down, where there are genuine conservation concerns, or even the aesthetics.
Hmm. It did appear to be about aesthetics at the start. Have you read my other posts? The 'Derwent motorway' is not a shooting track, it is path 'improvements', and if the thread comes to Stanage then 'those questions' most certainly have not been bypassed, nor is it for the benefit of any landowner but us. The discussion on public money, shooting tracks and landowners came later in the thread.
I understand completely the gut reaction, but when you try to articulate this in a consultation meeting (as I have) you best get your thinking straight or you risk looking foolish. I use the phrase 'nebulous concept of wildness' to differentiate between a path eroded by human feet, and a path laid by human hands. You can argue that the first is not development and the second is, but it's a weak line.
Are you saying you don't think there are/were any erosion issues on paths along the Derwent edges? If yes, what should be done? If not, how do you feel about the slabbed section laid in the early noughties? Genuine questions, it is not unlikely I'll get the chance to represent your views at some point...
-
:wall:
No I didn't imply it was an issue with aesthetics.
Others, in their response, may have implied that.
I'm not saying it isn't also a consideration, but it does get annoying when people look for something to attack in a thread, possibly to serve their own agendas or position, rather than out of concern for the issues raised.
I won't repeat what I have said and posted earlier. It is quite clear, in what I and others have said.
"it is not unlikely I'll get the chance to represent your views at some point..."
How very patronising. Is that likely, considering how strenuously you seem to want to challenge the concerns raised?
Regarding the slabs previously laid, it is difficult to comment, without seeing what was there first of all, and the changes made.
-
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here Dave, I'm in agreement with you. Apologies for coming across patronising. I am not looking to attacck anything, I'm trying to present how the professionals involved will view this. Just because it looks a mess and was a surprise doesn't necessarily mean it is being done rashly or without consultation.
Yes it is likely. As a volunteer access rep for the BMC I sit on various committees involved in this stuff to represent climbers and hillwalkers. I'm quite capable of presenting other's views as well as my own. E.g I seem to spend half my time defending bolting that I don't personally agree with. On this happily we are not far apart. It would be useful if you'd clarify your position though, your original post does seem to include aesthetics (I would include a sense of wildness here)? Or just the challenge presented by running the path?
I am surprised you don't remember the slabs being laid - around the millennium I think. Certainly a few years after I moved to Sheffield and you've been here a lot longer than me. It was an expanding quagmire before. I accept the slabs but don't like them. As I've tried to articulate above, the price for controlling erosion is a less wild feel. Stepping back, though, I struggle to articulate or justify why I'd prefer a morass of boot-holed peat. But I would, as a rule.
-
Your original post DT was about aesthetics, if not it was certainly implied, which is why i said it didn't look bad.
-
It is all about aesthetics.
Its not a natural landscape as we (humans) chopped down all the trees helping to generate the moorland some 5-8000 years ago (or thereabouts)... so our views on what is natural or not really are down to what we think is natural or not. Wildlife/fauna/bird populations can be decent enough indicators or diversity and habitat but 'what is natural' is nowadays a pretty abstract concept.
Sorry to go all philosophical on y'all - but lets just admit it is largely due to aesthetic reasons and say - so what!
On that basis, white compacted 'roads' accross the moorland look shit to me and seem totally out of place. Its a f*cking scandal if its been paid for with the public ££ IMHO...
-
Quite. In the Peak it is all about the sense of wildness.
I can only suspect DT has missed the sarcasm in a couple of my posts.
-
JB,
thanks for your well considered reply! :yes:
I used to run the classic Derwent route, finishing with a descent via Whinstone Lee Tor, which was one of the best bits. Quite rocky and technical. Fantastic.
This has been quite badly affected by the new track unfortunately; my reference to the bulldozing was to highlight the flattening of this section, movement and destruction of boulders etc. To me, the impact on the environment seemed grotesque. I appreciate that that may come across as an aesthetic consideration, but I'm worried that it goes aa long way beyond what was necessary.
It appeared that criteria beyond environmental concerns were the influencing factor here, with a sad and high impact on the area the result. Where will this lead?
What was really discussed prior to the works getting the go ahead, by whom, and to what agenda? There seems to have been a less critical overview, consideration of the bigger picture, and the Peak Park possibly less involved in the planning than they might have been.
Further...
On the board, getting cold.
My project is a path; I'll see if I can bulldoze my way through it.
And glad to have you back on too, Dense.
-
Quite. In the Peak it is all about the sense of wildness.
I can only suspect DT has missed the sarcasm in a couple of my posts.
Completely! :slap:
I also thought you could have been the real Hong Kong Phooey
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7799/17377291846_9881d5395a_b.jpg)
but that was A long shot.
-
Ran up over Derwent again tonight, with my mate Jim.
Unfortunately set off a bit too late to get any decent photos - my phone was struggling with the light, and refused to save some of them.
Anyway, I apologise for any undue concern caused by my reference to "motorway", as the path clearly resembles a dual carriageway:
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8778/17535852552_55bdf46ece_z.jpg)
I remember a similar road widening scheme many years ago, on the M5, South of Birmingham. You'd think people would learn; this will need widening again in a few years time, to soak up the extra traffic.
Seriously though, this changes the character of the area, and I for one feel robbed of what was there before. Would be great to have some other opinion from others who have been up there recently too. I still think it's appalling.
Less seriously, I have a "better" shot of Jim, but he promised to buy me beer for a year, if I didn't upload it. Good lad :)
-
After walking around burbage north, south, carls wark for the last few days I can safely say the Derwent dual carriageway looks loads better. Most people will stay on the path instead of turning the surrounding area into a quagmire. In the pic the lane on the left will eventually succumb to nature again. What's more the new pic makes me think the job has been done better than your old pics suggested. My opinion anyway
-
From the enquiries I've made it sounds like the spec was decent but the contractors had their own ideas. There may be more to it, but it sounds like Moors for the future weren't supervising closely enough.
-
Ran up over Derwent again tonight, with my mate Jim.
Unfortunately set off a bit too late to get any decent photos - my phone was struggling with the light, and refused to save some of them.
Anyway, I apologise for any undue concern caused by my reference to "motorway", as the path clearly resembles a dual carriageway:
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8778/17535852552_55bdf46ece_z.jpg)
I remember a similar road widening scheme many years ago, on the M5, South of Birmingham. You'd think people would learn; this will need widening again in a few years time, to soak up the extra traffic.
Seriously though, this changes the character of the area, and I for one feel robbed of what was there before. Would be great to have some other opinion from others who have been up there recently too. I still think it's appalling.
Less seriously, I have a "better" shot of Jim, but he promised to buy me beer for a year, if I didn't upload it. Good lad :)
There is a fine line between leaving the outdoors 'wild' 'natural' an preserving/preventing erosion - but this is taking the piss.
I'm a cynic but surely the main driver for all this stuff going on in the west Peak is part of this 'making Sheffield the outdoor capital of England' stuff. i.e they just want bums on seats (bums on paths in this case!), smash all the paths into roads, increase the visitor centres (which they are planning on doing), make it easier and easier for people to access these places and ergo increase revenue.
Sadly it is/will make it all a bit less natural/wild/romantic for some of us.
-
I'm just catching up on this thread after a couple of weeks, and whilst I've not seen the 'Derwent Motorway' with my own eyes, I am firmly in the OP camp on this one.
Actually, I think the photo of the Cowperstone path is extremely helpful, because it perfectly illustrates why I find that attempt at restoration 'acceptable' and the Derwent one (along with many of the monstrosities 'Fix the Fells' (sic) has been responsible for in The Lakes), so abhorrent. The main difference is that traditional restoration projects (such as the many miles constructed by Caff's dad) were the result of hard physical graft and crowbars, whereas the 'modern' (though I would call it backward) approach is to bring in a hydraulic excavator to do the grunt. And basically the potential to damage irreparably the fragile environment increases a thousandfold when you introduce such machinery.
Contrast the beautiful natural gritstone slabs, formed by natural erosion over millennia. At the Cowperstone their beauty an robustness is valued such that they are incorporated (with no visible damage) into the repaired path, whereas at Derwent equivalent slabs have had great chunks torn out if them, doubtless in a matter of seconds, by the crass dragging of a hydraulic excavator bucket.
And if that upsets you, I'd make sure you steer clear of the upper slopes of Lingmell in Wasdale, where another excavator (presumably helicoptered in) has ripped apart the hillside leaving a whole series of perfectly symmetrical hairpins up what was once a natural slope.
My firm view is that in the rush to 'get things done' conservation bodies are allowing the use of industrial plant which is completely inappropriate, without the necessary controls to temper the hand of gung-ho operators who are only interested in working to a budget.
Neil
-
Agreed.
I don't get the logic of making a new path. Once the soil is gone, particularly if the path forms a drainage line as above, the vegetation will take decades to creep back in.
-
Looking at Dave's photo, it looks like they've smashed the new path through the heather along the desire line that had been worn away by walkers etc. Must have been the cheapest way. The original path is the rocky path to the left, I think. It's really not sympathetic work is it. Doesn't bode well for the Cutthroat BW.
-
I'm amazed there's not a greater fuss about this - it's a national park ffs. If you so much as put up a satellite dish in a Nat Park the Feds come in and execute your family...
-
I'm amazed there's not a greater fuss about this - it's a national park ffs. If you so much as put up a satellite dish in a Nat Park the Feds come in and execute your family...
It's cause its the Feds doing it innit.....
-
Have been up there again today with Dave, and just beyond Cutthroat Bridge we bumped into the 'Moors for the Future' guys responsible for commissioning this work. They are pretty appalled at the way things have turned out too ('gash' was the way he described the quality of the work the contractors have inflicted on such a previously beautiful wilderness setting).
You've really got to go and see for yourselves to get a proper picture of how truly appalling this is. I felt like crying - this has been one of my favourite running areas for nearly 30 years, and the level of erosion as far as I could tell had hardly made any noticeable dent up there in all that time. This was a very special place for me with lots of happy memories. Since the relatively recent Mountain-biking craze and Vertebrate Graphics MB guidebooks being published, the scarring on some boulders had become an eyesore but nothing too intrusive altogether. It's destroyed up there now, like a bunch of vandals have been let loose. Absolutely unforgivably incompetent.
-
Great to hear everyone else's views on this.
Personally, I want to refrain from selecting quotes from replies that seem to support only my own views, but I do find it comforting to hear from others who feel a similar way. I know I'm the OP, but it's just been good to highlight the issue.
I find it interesting that some people focus on the immediate visual appearance, and Dense, you clearly don't mind what you see. Other people will feel the same way.
What is hard to convey, is what has been lost, directly as a result of the "smashing through" - which is a good way to describe what has been done. But I think it's worth remembering the particular and personally intimate involvement and attachment we have with these areas as climbers and/or runners; we probably register change, loss and threat to these environments more than most. That most certainly isn't an attempt to mitigate the sense of impact. It's probably more important that we speak up about things like this.
*****
As it happens, I've just been out to Derwent again with a friend, Jim Twohig (thanks for the lift out Jim).
We met four guys from the Peak Park and Moors for the Future who were out there to survey the works. Without going into all the details of what was discussed, it's clear there was agreement about the excessive intrusiveness of this work, and that there are lessons to be learnt. I understand there is ongoing dialogue between the various partners/contractors, and it wouldn't seem right to attempt to summarise things at this stage, other than to recall the word "gash" being used at some point. ;)
(Edit. Yes, I seem to remember that too; good you posted your own views too Jim.)
I've agreed to get back in touch for a little more information soon, although I acknowledge some people posting here have far more direct and ongoing dialogue with the Peak Park/Moors for the Future, and that there are some upcoming meetings.
I've taken some more photos which I'll try to upload shortly.
Dave T.
-
definitely going to have to name a hold on my wall "Moors Fo' Future"
-
More from today:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5329/17378778190_3b814a1129_z.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5445/16944063834_6c82db1298_z.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5452/16943754614_956ced214c_c.jpg)
I would like to add that I felt reassured to some extent by what was said today by the representatives of the Peak Peak and Moors for the Future. While it doesn't change what has been done, it's clear that there is a critical review ongoing, of how this work was carried out.
(If any of you are reading this, it was great to be able to talk openly about the work, and hear about your own views and involvement with it. Sorry I couldn't remember all your names, so preferred to leave that out.)
More photos here:
https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/93311068@N07/sets/72157652282644339/
Dave T.
-
I'm amazed there's not a greater fuss about this - it's a national park ffs. If you so much as put up a satellite dish in a Nat Park the Feds come in and execute your family...
couldn't agree more. in my village (in the NP) the architect business opposite wasn't even allowed to put up a shop sign on the exterior of the building I believe for fear of damaging the delicate aesthetics of the place. Definitely in Dave and other's camp on this; the opportunity to do a sympathetic job which minimised its intrusion has pretty much been lost here now for good, and sets a tone for surrounding BW's as Cofe rightly points out
-
Yep that looks absolutely shocking! What I was referring to when I said it looks like a decent job was the laid path itself
-
There's a bitter irony in that signpost title. Good work Mr 90 in publicising this.
-
Following on from my earlier post (May 12th), the four gentlemen we (myself and Jim T) met at Derwent, were Matt Scott-Campbell, Matt Buckler and Jamie Freestone from Moors for the Future, and Mike Rhodes from the Peak Park.
What was abundantly clear, was that, together, they shared the same concerns as most people who've expressed an opinion on the new path, and an overriding concern to get things right - which is great to hear.
I think I've taken a little too much liberty with some of the things that were discussed on Tuesday, so it's important I make sure people understand just how open and forthcoming the guys were, and how much they want to hear from people about this, and similar work. In that respect, I think there's a real opportunity to work together and make a difference.
Generally, I suppose, we notice when things don't go right. But there's as much onus on the rest of us, to bring things to them - in this case, the Peak Park and their partners. It's too easy to look for someone to blame, when something happens that we don't like; there's a real opportunity for dialogue and cooperation here, and I think we should embrace it with the good faith in which it's offered!
Dave T.
edit. I understand from Bob Berzins and Matt Scott-Campbell, that some runners have emailed the Peak Park directly with their views about this. They are aware of the thread too.
-
Could be worth highlighting this on http://www.ukhillwalking.com/ I'd imagine its a topic right up their
street off-the beaten track.
-
Following on from my earlier post (May 12th), the four gentlemen we (myself and Jim T) met at Derwent, were Matt Scott-Campbell, Matt Buckler and Jamie Freestone from Moors for the Future, and Mike Rhodes from the Peak Park.
What was abundantly clear, was that, together, they shared the same concerns as most people who've expressed an opinion on the new path, and an overriding concern to get things right - which is great to hear.
I think I've taken a little too much liberty with some of the things that were discussed on Tuesday, so it's important I make sure people understand just how open and forthcoming the guys were, and how much they want to hear from people about this, and similar work. In that respect, I think there's a real opportunity to work together and make a difference.
Generally, I suppose, we notice when things don't go right. But there's as much onus on the rest of us, to bring things to them - in this case, the Peak Park and their partners. It's too easy to look for someone to blame, when something happens that we don't like; there's a real opportunity for dialogue and cooperation here, and I think we should embrace it with the good faith in which it's offered!
Dave T.
edit. I understand from Bob Berzins and Matt Scott-Campbell, that some runners have emailed the Peak Park directly with their views about this. They are aware of the thread too.
The 'real opportunity for dialogue and cooperation' is supposed to happen before 'something happens' though Dave, not through bumping into the culprits by chance at the scene of the crime afterwards.
This didn't just 'happen', it was a hugely well-funded project effected for supposed environmental protection reasons, by a body whose whole raison d'etre is to be custodians of the moorlands. Notwithstanding that their assessment of the need for the work in the first place was flawed, the planning, implementation and supervision/ongoing-evaluation of the project has been disastrous. And plans are afoot to continue the degradation down the lovely remaining traversing path as far as Cutthroat bridge itself, as outlined on their own website.
There is no comparison with the relatively benign and unobtrusive flag-stoning work done fifteen odd years ago on the section up to Back Tor. That would be like comparing the Sistine Chapel ceiling to the daubings of a mentally impaired chimpanzee.
-
I would like to distance myself from some of the comments in the last post.
In particular, the reference to "culprits".
Dave T.
-
I would like to distance myself from some of the comments in the last post.
In particular, the reference to "culprits".
Dave T.
We didn't bump into four holograms up there, they're real people being paid a salary to protect the moorlands. They're responsible for their actions, and they were ashamed of the result, as they should be. Culprits is not too strong a word to use. You don't 'give opportunities for dialogue and consultation' after the event, what possible sense does that make? I would certainly be hoping for a chance for dialogue & consultation regarding their plans for the rest of the track, I can't see any reference to such "D&C" proposals regarding those plans on their site.
-
I've still not been able to find out if they had a duty to consult on the Derwent Edge path (private land, not a RoW), the only reason they might have had to is because it's a national park. Or because they had chosen to (but they didn't).
Dave's photo of the sign indicates a pause in the works. Perhaps now's the time for them to get their act together and do a decent job of finishing the work when work resumes in July, making good (as best they can) the landscape that's been trashed so far.
You'd hope they'd consult on the Cutthroat BW works as it's a RoW, but as has been demonstrated countless times in the Peak, and especially when DCC are involved, they pretty much do what they want.
-
I would like to distance myself from some of the comments in the last post.
In particular, the reference to "culprits".
Dave T.
We didn't bump into four holograms up there, they're real people being paid a salary to protect the moorlands. They're responsible for their actions, and they were ashamed of the result, as they should be. Culprits is not too strong a word to use. You don't 'give opportunities for dialogue and consultation' after the event, what possible sense does that make? I would certainly be hoping for a chance for dialogue & consultation regarding their plans for the rest of the track, I can't see any reference to such "D&C" proposals regarding those plans on their site.
At this stage I'd say that casting blame is not constructive. I'd suggest focussing on how to prevent this work from continuing and for the damage (these new paths) to be made good....
-
I would like to distance myself from some of the comments in the last post.
In particular, the reference to "culprits".
Dave T.
We didn't bump into four holograms up there, they're real people being paid a salary to protect the moorlands. They're responsible for their actions, and they were ashamed of the result, as they should be. Culprits is not too strong a word to use. You don't 'give opportunities for dialogue and consultation' after the event, what possible sense does that make? I would certainly be hoping for a chance for dialogue & consultation regarding their plans for the rest of the track, I can't see any reference to such "D&C" proposals regarding those plans on their site.
At this stage I'd say that casting blame is not constructive. I'd suggest focussing on how to prevent this work from continuing and for the damage (these new paths) to be made good....
This is an open forum and as Dave said in a previous post, the 'Moors for the Future' people are reading this input, so inasmuch as there has been no consultation so far, they'll be able to get the tenor of my feelings at least!
-
Casting blame is very constructive some times
-
In all cases like this, I think it's good to look for the best way forward from where we are now.
My own opinion is that there isn't sufficient dialogue and consultation, opinion gathering etc beforehand. That is why I started this thread. But when it's clear that an opportunity for better communication exists, we should do what we can to encourage that. If we don't, we are just as culpable as anyone, if things don't turn out the way we would like them to.
I find the work up on Derwent quite appalling. No dialogue changes that, but I'd rather we have someone to discuss this with, moving forward, as is clearly the case. I will speak with Moors for the Future and the Peak Park, to find the best point of contact/email address for people to use to express their views more directly, although they're aware of this thread. Maybe someone else can post it, if they have that information.
Some other notes.
As Matt from MftF and Mike from the Peak Park pointed out, this work has not been completed yet - yes, as referenced on the sign. I didn't want to highlight that fact unnecessarily, as I felt it could potentially place undue emphasis on only the visual impact, which is something that will undoubtedly improve over time.
What I find distressing is the intrusion, and the way the track has been bulldozed through without being adequately sympathetic to what was there before - which I feel has been ripped up and lost.
Trying to make the most of what opportunity there is to be heard, will be a good way to help influence how things are done in the future. I think that is a good thing.
Regarding the Cutthroat B'way, it sounds as though there may be a public meeting beforehand, although this is yet to be confirmed. Again, I'm sure that requests to the Peak Park to that effect would help.
It is clear that there is ongoing discussion between the contractor, Moors for the Future and the Peak Park. I think it would be unreasonable to prejudge the outcome of those discussions, but it was clear from the comments of Mike Rhodes and Matt Scott-Campbell that they are as concerned as anyone about the end result.
Personally, I'm aware of course, that there's a degree to which opinion will not be shared about what work is really necessary, what isn't, and how it is implemented. To some extent, we have to place the responsibility for that judgement in the hands of someone, and bring things to their attention when we feel mistakes have been made. Which is what we're doing.
We can't put the rocks back, but this is the role of dialogue in all these things.
DT
-
Casting blame is very constructive some times
It's all Denses fault. He did it! ;)
-
I would like to distance myself from some of the comments in the last post.
In particular, the reference to "culprits".
Dave T.
We didn't bump into four holograms up there, they're real people being paid a salary to protect the moorlands. They're responsible for their actions, and they were ashamed of the result, as they should be. Culprits is not too strong a word to use. You don't 'give opportunities for dialogue and consultation' after the event, what possible sense does that make? I would certainly be hoping for a chance for dialogue & consultation regarding their plans for the rest of the track, I can't see any reference to such "D&C" proposals regarding those plans on their site.
At this stage I'd say that casting blame is not constructive. I'd suggest focussing on how to prevent this work from continuing and for the damage (these new paths) to be made good....
This is an open forum and as Dave said in a previous post, the 'Moors for the Future' people are reading this input, so inasmuch as there has been no consultation so far, they'll be able to get the tenor of my feelings at least!
Err, yes, I think they might! What sort of rope do you like to use? :P
I didn't have an opportunity for a lengthier response earlier, although my earlier comment stands.
By the way, I hate the flag stones, always have, but to some extent go with the reasoning behind them being used.
-
Piano wire: filmed and shown to the other ranks to 'discourage les autres'!
-
Piano wire: filmed and shown to the other ranks to 'discourage les autres'!
That's a mixed up reference to the aftermath of the Stauffenberg plot and the general's comment in Kubrick's 'Paths of Glory' Dave, to be fartily pretentious!
-
Piano wire: filmed and shown to the other ranks to 'discourage les autres'!
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8742/17682330831_f138e7c631_b.jpg)
L'Autre Toit?
-
Contact information for the Peak District National Park:
01629 816200
customer.service@peakdistrict.gov.uk
http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/
Why not go online, and give your opinion?
These are general contact details from the website.
-
new footpath work in progress
(from Grimer's Twatter)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFEjoVWWoAAtRd1.jpg)
-
Using locally sourced materials too! Very Sympathetic.
Great, great effort from Grimer to remove that trash.
Serious waddage!!
-
Great, great effort from Grimer to remove that trash.
Are you sure he's removing it? :-\
-
[quote apads=slackline link=topic=25722.msg487717#msg487717 date=1431862600]
Great, great effort from Grimer to remove that trash.
Are you sure he's removing it? :-\
[/quote]
Yep, couldn't fit all the pads in.
-
More info on Derwent Motorway and what might happen next....
I went to a meeting of the Local Access Forum (Peak Park committee) yesterday. Attended by representatives of Peak Park, Derbyshire County Council, BMC and landowner. Not present - Natural England, Moors for Future or contractor (these designed, managed and did work on the ground).
The path was built with public money.
I tried to represent the range and depth of views expressed on this forum - not just my own views. Everyone was blaming the contractor and by implication, the lack of supervision/management. But this didn't answer some fundamental questions about whether a scheme of this size was appropriate at all. The work is not finished and there is an opportunity to ask/tell the contractor what to do when work resumes. Already heard a suggestion about replacing, right way up, boulders that had been removed by the JCB.
The BMC have been very quiet on this whole matter. I would have hoped to see them being very loud in saying this has been a cock up in all sorts of ways and what can be done prevent it happening again. Certainly the BMC is best placed to be informed about any future schemes and publicise and enable consultation. If you agree with this you need to let them know what you think.
Re: second part of work - on bridleway from cut throat bridge. I stated several times that I thought there should be an open public meeting - this is a possibility but the downside is meetings can get taken over by a few people who shout loudest. I will push for a public meeting, but also a meeting of "representatives" eg mountain bikers, horse riders etc. And an opportunity for people to comment online - plans/ photos etc should be posted on Derbyshire county council website. The timetable for this is not soon - will be the autumn at earliest I expect.
Finally I did reflect the views about possible wheelchair access to derwent edge. This and other potential user access (bikes etc) did not feature at all in the planning. What we are left with is a poorly constructed eyesore of a path which is over engineered for walkers but unavailable and inappropriately engineered for other users.
I'll try to reflect all comments on this forum for future meetings. But if you really want something to happen then contact the Peak Park/ Derbyshire County Council or BMC. You can do this direct or via me - just message me. Bob Berzins
-
Henry was at the meeting wasn't he? I would tend to defer to his judgement as to whether the BMC should make a public fuss about it. Did you discuss it with him?
-
JB - I think its best for others to comment on how they might like the BMC to be involved or not. I'm just reporting that in my opinion the BMC has been quiet (officially) on this. The BMC does get deeply involved in a wide range of environmental stuff in the peak. There are calls on this thread for "consultation", surely the BMC is best placed to provide this so climbers can have their say? I didn't discuss it directly with Henry at the meeting but am happy to do so.
Further info about the technique used to build the path - it's called substrate reversal and seems to be widely used/promoted by Moors for the Future
http://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/substrate-reversal
My monitor won't show the wording on the insert, but it clearly states that a large excavator needs to be used. Anybody know how to get more info on this technique? Bob
-
Further info about the technique used to build the path - it's called substrate reversal and seems to be widely used/promoted by Moors for the Future
http://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/substrate-reversal
My monitor won't show the wording on the insert, but it clearly states that a large excavator needs to be used. Anybody know how to get more info on this technique? Bob
(http://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/TF%20-%20Hymacing%20Section%201%20Pub.jpg)
-
Incidentally, I liked this bit on the main page Bob linked to:
This technique is relatively cheap
After all, it's only a national park, and pennies make pounds!
-
Thanks for the update Bob,
Some thought is required on how to make the most effective protest, while keeping the Peak Park firmly on our side.
I'd spoken to Mike Rhodes about the possibility of climbers (and runners) working directly with the Peak Park on future projects, on a volunteer basis. Would others be interested? Direct involvement may be the most effective way to influence things in the future.
I also mentioned the unilateral efforts made by climbers to keep the crag environment clean - Grimer's installation of the new shower block at Stanage notwithstanding. ;D
Looking to the BMC as the voice of climbers will, I feel, be far less effective than personal efforts and communication directly with the Peak Park and/or Moors ft Future.
As Bob said, if you haven't done so already, contact them directly!
It's worth considering carefully the degree of abuse that people receive however, when things go wrong. Keeping that to a minimum will surely help. We're all stakeholders, and creating unnecessary division will be counter productive.
From the dialogue I've had with them, I understand that comment made directly to Mike Rhodes at the Peak Park, or Matthew Scott-Campbell at Moors for the Future is the best line for communication. Their direct contact details were given to me when I called the head office. I'll check to see if it's OK to post here, but again, via head office is easy enough.
It's also worth considering, as a governmental body, just how much or little consultation PP/MftF are obliged to undertake with groups such as climbers, runners etc.
If we want to be able to influence how future work is implemented, then we've got to do what we can to work together.
-
Quick update.
There was a meeting up at Derwent/Cutthroat yesterday, to gather views, discuss ways forward etc. Mike from the Peak Park, Matt and Jamie from Moors ft Future, James from Peak District MTB, Henry from the BMC, Mike from SCAM (Campaign for Access), Bob Berzins and myself.
I'll provide more info later.
What I can say now though, is that the meeting was very much one of shared opinion, with the focus entirely on how to improve things moving forward.
The greatest reassurance - in my opinion - has come from the openness of Mike Rhodes from the Peak Park, and Matt Scott-Campbell from Moors for the Future. In particular, Mike's own contact details are available from the Peak Park website. They are far more approachable than I think people assume.
Even those who've expressed the strongest views on this thread would have been reassured by what was said and discussed - though that does nothing to mitigate the impact of the awful work done up there. A view shared by all present.
If it's possible, I'd like to gather some thoughts from people, about ways of improving ongoing collaboration and dialogue with the Peak Park. There already seems to be greater dialogue between the mountain bike groups and the PDNP. I may be wrong! II'm talking about opening channels of communication that are not merely about access issues or complaints. I don't want to offend any of the many people who have already put a tremendous amount of effort into trying to achieve this sort of thing already. Thoughts and ideas..?
Regarding the Cutthroat Bridleway, this appears to be on hold at the moment. Again, more info later.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5605/18252126693_d9a552a76c_c.jpg)
More to follow.
-
I saw this beautiful painting of the Coach and Horses, up at Derwent, on the way back home tonight. I think it captures some of the magic and atmosphere which felt destroyed and cut through by the new track:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/566/23927388716_6fabfdd26a_b.jpg)
Painting from the website of the artist Juliet Forrest, on show at The Bessemer gallery, Ecclesall Road, Sheffield.
I was wondering if anyone else had been out over Derwent recently, and had anything to report? I'll try to get some feedback on any further developments up there in the new year.
Happy Christmas, folks ;D
P.S. http://www.jjjartwork.com/#!the-coach-and-horses/c1uak
-
I reported a while ago, that I'd update with news of future developments and when consultation was planned regarding future works.
I've received the following email from Bob Berzins, which I've agreed to post here:
"Mike/Dave
As discussed in today's LAF, there is an ongoing archaeological survey on
the Cut Throat Bridge bridleway leading up to derwent edge due to complete
at end of July.
Following that there will be specifications drawn up for the bridleway
repair.
Dave - would you like to comment and publicise the consultation amongst
the climbers and followers of UK Bouldering and others?
Cheers, Bob."
I've been up over Derwent a couple of times recently, and it seems there has been little or no remedial work carried out, in an attempt to improve how things were left. It may be that that is the best option, but I'll try to seek further clarification on that from Mike Rhodes.
Hopefully other people will want to get involved, and recognise the importance of this area, and the relevance to management of other areas in the Peak. I think it would be good for more of us to get involved with discussion, as opposed to just moaning when things go wrong. ;) We've got a lot to contribute here, given the opportunity.
Thanks Bob.
Dave.
-
Went up yesterday afternoon, first time this year. A few observations:
- it's still visible from space.
- the veg surrounding it, e.g. near Coach and Horses, is growing back on either side of the path (which is visible from space) – maybe a good thing?
- given they've built a two-metre wide (for much of its length), all-weather, armoured trail, shouldn't it be upgraded to permissive bridleway status?
- it's still visible from space.
- nervous about the imminent Cutthroat works.
Nice day for a walk, anyway.
-
Good work for the update Cofe.
"Still visible from space" - yes, but which universe?!
I think it looks worse, if anything.
I spoke with Mike Rhodes from the Peak Park recently, and there will be a consultation about Cutthroat imminently, though slightly limited in number. It sounds as though there will be strong representation from different user groups.
I wouldn't want to say too much ahead of the meeting, but it sounds very much as though a different contractor will be used.
There are also difficulties with consultation between the different parties, prior to works going ahead, and I'm sure there will be some strong views about that. i.e. it's not as if it's solely the Peak Park who give the go ahead with certain proposals.
I think Mike Rhodes is especially committed to trying to find a good solution between land owners, Natural England, user groups etc. He also seems pretty gutted about the mess up over Derwent.
I guess we've got to find a way of trying to get our own voices heard, in a way that influences how things are done but currently, there are limits, and the PP can't act beyond their jurisdiction - though of course, we go to them when things go wrong. I think they're probably our best ally in trying to improve things.
It'll be interesting to see what comes out of discussions.
Again, nice work on the update Cofe. It's still a proper mess, isn't it :(
-
Oh yeah, the path looks bloody awful, but it was just an observation about the stuff growing back to the sides.
-
I don't have a problem with it. I've probably run up on the Derwent Edges more than half a dozen times this year. It's all weather and I for one will be enjoying it with a headtorch through the depths of winter. I can't say that for most of Kinder.
-
For those with a serious interest in path maintenance....
BMC Conference on Upland Paths : Mending Our Way (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-conference-on-upland-paths-mending-our-ways)
-
Application for retrospective planning consent for the plastic track over Gut Gate. Record your objections here:
https://pam.peakdistrict.gov.uk/?r=NP/S/1217/1304&commentsent=yes
-
Done, thanks JB and Henry.
-
Hey, thanks for posting that up :thumbsup:
Just seen it, so not looked through the docs yet.
-
Post your conclusions up here Dave?
-
Henry's letter is a very good starting point:
https://pam.peakdistrict.gov.uk/files/57349127.pdf
My concern is that management committees - in their own self-appointed way - seem to be able to convince themselves that any proposal is a wonderful idea.
We will come to understand and enjoy the benefits over years to come .. the benefits really do outweigh the short term inconvenience .. it's a tough decision etc (vom emoji).
-
I suspect it's got bugger all to do with management committees and more to do with rich people doing what the F they like because they have both friends in high places and the political winds at their rear.
-
And really, nothing to do with being rich either, just vested interest going unchallenged - that may then lead to people becoming "richer". I have no problem with people being rich. Too many people justify their action/policies on having less than someone else.
What's happening on Derwent is an outrage.
-
Me neither Dave, but if there's one thing grouse moor owners have in common it's money.
-
Sorry to quote George again, but your money, by the looks of it...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/28/britain-plutocrats-landed-gentry-shotgun-owners
And ..
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/16/grouse-shooters-kill-first-casualty-is-truth-astroturfing-botham-rspb-packham