FORUM CLASSIFIEDS DIFFLOCK.com Links & Networks
Forum Homepage
Log in
Profile
Search
Private Messages
Forum Members
Register
Classified Ads
Search Ads
Place New Ad
My ads
Place your classified
ads here for FREE
NB: Adverts placed in the general
forum areas will be deleted
Difflock Homepage
Online Shop
Contact Us
FAQ
Calendar
Garage
Facebook
Twitter
Youtube
Advertise With Us - Reach your target market by advertising on the Difflock.com forum.
Click here or call 0845 125 9407


Chapel Gate TRO - Objections needed by mid-June

 
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Difflock Forum Index -> Green Lanes and Rights of Way
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
richarde
Winch Assistant


Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Odometer: 94
Location: Dronfield, Derbyshire



PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2013 11:56 am    Post subject: Chapel Gate TRO - Objections needed by mid-June Reply with quote

The Peak District National Park Authority is proposing a TRO on Chapel Gate prohibiting its use by motor vehicles. Chairman of the Peak & Derbyshire User Group says
Quote:
The Peak District National Park Authority is seeking a permanent TRO on Chapel Gate and inviting public comments/objections. Chapel Gate is currently the best driveable route in the Peak District. We need to muster as many objections as possible. On previous consultations for the Roych and Long Causeway we managed thousands of comments.

We are aiming to have over 6000 objections for Chapel Gate. Please circulate and forward this to as many clubs, forums and users as possible all across the UK , with a request to ensure objections are submitted through the link here:
http://consult.peakdistrict.gov.uk/details.cfm?TROID=6

or by email to chapelgate@peakdistrict.gov.uk or by post BEFORE the middle of June.

The link above will give all the information needed from the Peak Park ’s website. The objections do not need to be long or technical but your objection will carry more weight if you give good reasons. Asking questions of the National Park in your objection is a good tactic to flush out a non-standard response. To help, there are several points below, which you may wish to incorporate into any objection:

• The Peak District National Park Authority (PDNPA) is acting in a discriminatory fashion by singling out recreational vehicle users for "management" in this way.

• The PDNPA is openly prejudiced and biased against vehicle users, with Members of the Authority taking public positions and being members of pressure groups opposed to recreational drivers and riders.

• The majority recommendations of the Local Access Forum (LAF), which is a legal body formed to advise the PDNPA on matters around Rights of Way was ignored in proposing this Permanent TRO. The LAF had recommended a limited TRO.

• The Rights of Way Officers conducted a flawed survey as part of an unlawful Experimental TRO, yet they still use its biased and discriminatory findings to seek the approval of the PDNPA to proceed to a Permanent TRO.

• Much of the Authority’s concern is for the ecology of the area, which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) but they will not concede that the area is also Open Access and therefore subject to walkers leaving the route to wander freely across the landscape.

• The Authority claims to be concerned about damage to the lane and other users being forced from the route by vehicles or the ‘expectation’ of meeting vehicles and so creating parallel tracks. However, they are not concerned when walkers, cyclists and horse riders damage bridleways and create parallel tracks on other routes. In this way the PDNPA operates double standards.

• The PDNPA is utterly unconcerned that they are removing a legal right to use Chapel Gate for a small minority of users. The Authority is happy to suggest that vehicle users can use the surfaced road network as an alternative but refuses to suggest that walkers, cyclists and horse riders could use alternative footpaths and bridleways to avoid the Chapel Gate BOAT.

PLEASE object however briefly and please ensure that you submit the objection BEFORE 28 June. Your effort will count.

Nigel Bennett
Peak and Derbyshire Vehicle User Group (PDVUG)

__________________________________
RichardE
Member: Peak Park Local Access Forum - Peak & Dukeries Land Rover Club - GLASS - MudClub
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
richarde
Winch Assistant


Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Odometer: 94
Location: Dronfield, Derbyshire



PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:31 am    Post subject: Chapel Gate TRO - Objections needed by mid-June Reply with quote

URGENT REMINDER
A simple statement that you object to the proposal WILL BE IGNORED You must say why you object and some more guidance is given below.
Quote:
Emails or Online responses must be received by 28 June 2013.
We request you respond in the current Public Consultation regarding a second attempt by the Peak Park Authority to impose a permanent TRO on Chapel Gate.

If imposed this would ban all motorised users 24/7.

The first attempt failed due to their distorted approach, which enabled the order to be successfully challenged in the High Court. The Authority immediately started the ball rolling again, completely ignoring the work done in the interim by the Highway Authority to make the route sustainable.

You will see there are two methods of responding, online and via email.

There are one or two process points I should draw to your attention.
Ensure you include as part of your representation your full name and either your postal address or your email address. The authority ask this, and will probably invalidate any anonymous submissions.
State whether you are representing your personal views or the views of an organisation.

(Our recommendation is that you present your personal views. By all means add, if accurate, that you are a member of various organisations with interests in this matter, but do NOT name them. This prevents multiple views being counted by the Authority as 'one vote from ...).
You must CLEARLY state that you are OBJECTING to the proposal. If using email make this an individual statement.

If using the online form it is imperative that the “OBJECTION” Box is ticked.

If your comments are not clearly marked Objection they will be classed as General Comments, and effectively ignored.

It is NOT enough to write a single sentence 'I object'.


You must say why you object, and the comments from the PDVUG Chairman will help, if you have no words and phrases of your own springing immediately to mind. You don't have to write a treatise that would get you a University degree, but you have to give some reasons.

Active links
http://consult.peakdistrict.gov.uk/details.cfm?TROID=6
chapelgate@peakdistrict.gov.uk
http://consult.peakdistrict.gov.uk/files/1305-C...aft-Order-Map.pdf

Regards, David Sparkes

__________________________________
RichardE
Member: Peak Park Local Access Forum - Peak & Dukeries Land Rover Club - GLASS - MudClub
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Difflock Forum Index -> Green Lanes and Rights of Way All times are GMT - 12 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum
Oil Safe

Service Kits

Adrian Flux 2019

Facebook

Specialist Tools

Join our mailing list for upcoming events, special offers, discount coupons and expert advice on the latest 4x4 products!

* indicates required





    
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group