Paul D

Old, nackered 'n broke, but the Landy is fine . :)
Events Planner
They're at it again ... sent to me via email.

PLEASE RE-POST:

The Peak District National Park is seeking a permanent TRO on Chapel Gate and inviting objections. Chapel Gate is currently the best drivable 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 over 4000 objections.

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 either :
through the link: http://consult.peakdistrict.gov.uk/details.cfm?TROID=6
or by email to chapelgate@peakdistrict.gov.uk
or by post.
The ‘BEFORE 28th June 2013’ qualification applies to all methods of responding.

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 increase their workload. 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 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 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 used 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)
 
Thanks ..

Next time we have a Bouncing Bakewell, or similar, we'll do Chapel Gate and Roych Clough .. you'll love 'em .. even though they've been somewhat sanitised lately .. ;)
 
Thanks ..

Next time we have a Bouncing Bakewell, or similar, we'll do Chapel Gate and Roych Clough .. you'll love 'em .. even though they've been somewhat sanitised lately .. ;)

I did give the link for the charity to the peaks proposal and illustrated that point very strongly :D
The air ambulance kindly wrote a little piece on their website for me about the bouncing bakewell :)
 
Had a reply asking me to confirm if my email is my " formal consultation response" as I asked for a reply to my email? Are they doing this with everyone or is it just me? Are they stalling for time hoping that some wont reply and therfore their objections wont be counted?
Just me being suspicious or what?
 
Had a reply asking me to confirm if my email is my " formal consultation response" as I asked for a reply to my email? Are they doing this with everyone or is it just me? Are they stalling for time hoping that some wont reply and therfore their objections wont be counted?
Just me being suspicious or what?

Nope I got this one


Dear Susan

Thank you for submitting a representation for the proposed Traffic Regulation Order for Chapel Gate.

Your details were submitted on Fri 14/06/2013 at 08:43.

Before any decision is taken whether to proceed with the making of a traffic regulation order on this route, the consultation responses will be considered by the Authority's Audit, Resources and Performance Committee. When the date of the Committee meeting is identified this will be shown on TRO consultations: Peak District National Park Authority. Reports will be available the week before the meeting at Committees: Peak District National Park Authority.

We will email to let you know of the decision using the contact details provided. Please let us know if your details change.

A copy of your representation is below:

Name ********************

Email: ********************

This representation represents: My individual views

This representation is: Opposed to the proposal

Your response:
 
Ooh, sorry, didn't read properly ...

Just checked back and I only got the same as Sue this time .. an acknowledgement of receipt, basically. I have had a similar one to yours Pocketrocket, but that was when I also requested a reply to the original Stanage closures!! It may be a way of checking they're not getting objections from bots!!

I'd email them back confirming it as a formal objection.
 
Ooh, sorry, didn't read properly ...

Just checked back and I only got the same as Sue this time .. an acknowledgement of receipt, basically. I have had a similar one to yours Pocketrocket, but that was when I also requested a reply to the original Stanage closures!! It may be a way of checking they're not getting objections from bots!!

I'd email them back confirming it as a formal objection.

Hehe thanks paul, ;)
 

Similar threads