Peaks trying to close another lane

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Will have a look at home - more time ;) Do the documents linked to in their page give reasons why they want to close it? rocksides? 6 foot deep ruts? nesting lesser natterjack newt? :p etc.
 
Reasons are load of bollocks

Its basically bobble hat lot again theres no physical reason

1 example given if reasons

The presence of mechanically propelled vehicles using the route, effect and evidence
of their passing, and the works required to manage
that use have an impact on the
natural beauty in this area. This impact and the a
nticipation of the presence of
motorised users can detract from the experience and
enjoyment by other users. The
reference in section 5 of the National Parks and Ac
cess to the Countryside Act 1949
to the purpose of understanding and enjoyment of th
e special qualities of National
Parks suggests a focus on quiet outdoor countryside
recreation associated with the
wide open spaces, wildness and tranquility to be fo
und within the National Park.
(Defra 2007). The use of the route by mechanically
propelled vehicles detracts from
this focus.
Click to expand...
 
I have expressed my displeasure basically stating how the PDNPA always seem to close byways but never have any problems with the amount of foot traffic causing erosion to footpaths etc.

Its also funny how byways seem to pass through areas of specific scientific interest etc but footpaths do not!

The PDNPA folds to the ramblers every time.

another reason is the park not wanting to spend money maintaining routes so its far easier and cheaper to TRO or close them. You need to remind them they have a legal obligation to do so.
 
Done..

Main points mentioned....Disabled access, assisting others in difficulty, groups benefiting local economy, closures putting more pressure on remaining lanes...other stuff anorl but I wrote an essay and can't remember half of it :eek:
 
####s sake

Looking at my Derbyshire routes from a couple of years ago even, I have to cut out south now.

Might as well ditch leys lane whilst I'm at it :rolleyes:
 
Just looking at the map again - why is the entire lane not part of the proposal; there's still a BOAT at either end which would be pretty pointless to navigate (drive up &....then reverse....) or is that the whole bloody idea?
 
the other lane they have slapped a P/TRO on (The roych) recently in the peaks is the same you can drive up part of it both ends but cant actually connect the dots. Prob so ramblers can park their cars at each end
 
DIFFLOCK66 said:
Just looking at the map again - why is the entire lane not part of the proposal; there's still a BOAT at either end which would be pretty pointless to navigate (drive up &....then reverse....) or is that the whole bloody idea?
Click to expand...

stu2985 said:
the other lane they have slapped a P/TRO on (The roych) recently in the peaks is the same you can drive up part of it both ends but cant actually connect the dots. Prob so ramblers can park their cars at each end
Click to expand...

That's exactly why they do it.

Because we won't bother to drive the other ends.

The PDNPA are so bloody corrupt it's un real! :mad:

we're onto a loser without a Prominent figure or organisation to support us. The ramblers age GLEAM, and there backed by MP's. MP's that will cut funding if things aren't done or who can at least make things difficult for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Freelander TD4 starting problems
Replies
8
Views
1K
Nodge68
Nodge68
xDParis64
Freelander 1 Converting from wasted spark to distributor (or Visa Versa)
Replies
0
Views
326
xDParis64
xDParis64
Nodge68
Freelander 2 (LR2) LR trouble codes.
Replies
6
Views
33K
Keith Kernow Kernewick
Keith Kernow Kernewick
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2
Replies
29
Views
5K
tottot
tottot
DavidSally
Another TRO on the cards. Peak District
Replies
2
Views
777
m1dge
m1dge
Back
Top