Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Stannage Edge / Long Causeway closed to vehicular traffic
#1
Just a heads up to anyone who rides a trail bike. Long Causeway / Stannage Edge is now closed to vehicular traffic. Peak Park really are flexing their muscles. They don't want motorised vehicles using the lanes in the Peaks so they are systematically closing the main ones with temp or (like this) permanent TRO's.

Quote:Dear Sir/Madam

The National Park Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England) Regulations 2007 – Notice of Making a Traffic Regulation Order – Long Causeway

I am writing to give notice that a traffic regulation order (TRO) has been made under section 22BB(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act (RTRA) 1984 to prohibit use by mechanically propelled vehicles at any time along the route known as Long Causeway.

The order will come into force on 18 September 2014. A copy of the notice of making of the order is attached to this letter for information together with the Regulation 14 decision notice giving the reasons for not acceding to objections made.

The notice, order, decision notice and a map showing the extent of the restriction can be found at http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/tros.

Please note that there are no rights of appeal to the making of the TRO, although an application may be made to the High Court within 6 weeks of the date of the order if it is considered that the order has not been validly made.

Thank you for taking the time to comment.

Yours faithfully

Sue Smith
Rights of Way Officer
[Image: Crashtestmonkeyredsmall_zpsfc1e3d39.jpg] Croft 2005, Cadwell 2006, Cadwell 2007
Reply
#2
http://www.trf.org.uk/forum/download/file.php?id=3529

If anyone is interseted the TRF are doing a run up there on the 14th in aid of Operation Christmas Child, it has been virtually flattened now so can be ridden on a big trailie if you fancy a ride up there.
Reply
#3
The TRF really missed the boat with the Peaks. Well minded organisation with the teeth of a goldfish as they were never prepared to use the fighting fund to fight for the Peaks.
Too much infighting for too long by a specific group of people who "fiddled* whilst the Peaks burned".


Musical rather than financial metaphor. Smile
[Image: Crashtestmonkeyredsmall_zpsfc1e3d39.jpg] Croft 2005, Cadwell 2006, Cadwell 2007
Reply
#4
I've got to agree they keep harping on about joining forces with 4x4 groups to make the fight stronger, when anyone who rides the lanes in the peaks will know the damage to the lanes while caused by natural erosion on chapel and stanage but the smaller lanes suffer massively from 4x4 ruts. They parks and recreation are now saying they will take an educational approach to motorised vehicles, thats because they've closed the most popular lanes.
Reply
#5
I've seen the TRF from the inside when we set up the 'Virtual Peaks' Group. That so nearly didn't happen because some of the older and very influential members didn't want us as part of the TRF. One doddery old muppet who was very powerful within his clique had been told about the 'Green Lane Crew'. They are/were generally pillocks on the internet and at the time were trying to take as many people as they could on rides in the Peaks (sort of a mass trespass event). Said doddery old git had it in his head that 'Muddymonkeys' - as we were known at the time - were responsible and on that basis didn't want us near the TRF. He never did accept that we had nothing to do with the 'Green Lane Crew' and were a completely seperate entity. Evidently it was on the internet, therefore it was us!

We had to jump through hoops you would never believe to get Group Status and despite it supposedly being a formality we had to do a presentation and then it went to a vote. Seems ridiculous given that we asked for no money (other TRF groups take money for every member they have), gave them an influx of new members and dragged them kicking and screaming into the internet era.
Throughout our tenure as a group the same faces continued to object to us. If it weren't for Slider and Matt I'd have walked long before we did as it 100% wasn't worth the grief.

There are some very dedicated hardworking guys in the TRF management and heading some TRF Groups.
There was (is still?) a nucleus of influential people with their own agenda that spent years working hard, then ultimately and selfishly made progress in the Peaks extremely difficult as they didn't like the direction the TRF was taking. That was the beginning of the end for the Peaks and it happened from within the TRF creating the perfect storm for Peak Parks, Ramblers and any other groups wanting to rid the peaks of vehicular traffic.

For me we are now reaping what they sowed. Very very sad.
[Image: Crashtestmonkeyredsmall_zpsfc1e3d39.jpg] Croft 2005, Cadwell 2006, Cadwell 2007
Reply
#6
Strangely enough, Virtual Peaks is still listed as a TRF group....
Reply
#7
(09-15-2014, 09:19 PM)BB Wrote: Strangely enough, Virtual Peaks is still listed as a TRF group....

They had our official letter of resignation as a group a long time ago from Matt, but weren't happy about it. Whilst it would be nice to think it is their way of trying to keep the chance of a Virtual Group running again alive I think the simple answer is no one has got around to deleting it. Big Grin
[Image: Crashtestmonkeyredsmall_zpsfc1e3d39.jpg] Croft 2005, Cadwell 2006, Cadwell 2007
Reply
#8
I think you may be right with the forgot to delete it! lol
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)