We are getting media interest...the following has been sent in
response, to the BBC.
I've attached the PDNPA's summary of objections (most of which came from TRF members) and their reasons for ignoring them.
Their argument centres on their description of the area as being an area of 'Natural Zone': whatever they may mean by that. They admit that the road itself and much of the landscape that it passes through have been created by the hand of man, but that doesn't apparently stop it being 'Natural Zone'!
They admit they have have made no attempt to assess the impact of other land users on the 'Natural Zone' or indeed the surface of the route itself. Anything that is unpleasant or undesirable on the route is, apparently, the fault of vehicle users. Presumably this includes dog mess and the associated attacks on livestock and wildlife, litter dropped by walkers, hoof damage and dung left by horses etc etc.
Even if other users do not encounter vehicles while they are in the area, the mere knowledge that they might, is, it seems, destroying the tranquillity of the 'Natural Zone'. I wonder how such people cope with life? Presumably most of them have travelled in motor vehicles to access the route, so the trauma inflicted by the possibility of seeing another motor vehicle while on their perambulations cannot be too great. Indeed the PDNPA provides car parking areas on the route: should these be screened to protect the view and shield them from the sight of those who never came to terms with the 20th century, let alone the 21st?
Similarly people who have visual, hearing or mental impairment may be endangered by vehicles...what attempts are being made to mitigate against all the other dangers that such individuals may not be aware of. The surrounding area is littered with hazards for such individuals.
They talk about the 'historic nature' of the track...part of that history is its use by motorcycles, which has been going on since the earliest years of the last century, but because that doesn't fit in with their 'illustrated souvenir fudge box' view of the countryside it is to be wiped out of history.
They talk about damage to the ecology of the area being caused by motor vehicles...can they reference any independent study which identifies this damage and attributes it specifically and exclusively to motorcycles?
Interestingly, the route has recently been resurfaced by the County Council, apparently in a bid to improve disabled access: this has caused a more drastic change to its appearance and nature than all the ordinary use of the last 20 years. The route can now be negotiated by a 'Tramper': a motorised wheelchair, and it looks like a path in an urban park.
The PDNPA claims that it understands that: "The National Park is for everyone and use of recreational motor vehicles on routes with proven rights is a legitimate activity."
There are proven rights on the route, but these are apparently subordinate to nebulous and invented concepts such at 'tranquillity' and 'Natural Zone' and entirely fictitious hazards postulated for hypothetical disabled people without any evidence at all.
One will search in vain for a direct explanation as to why this should be so in the Peak District National Park Authority's official documentation relating to the matter. But there is a clue.
"Members may have personal interests which may not be prejudicial to the decisions taken."
At the time the decision was taken, the PDNPA's ARP Committee, which was tasked with making the decision was chaired by one Christopher Pennell. The same gentleman was also a leading supporter : a 'Gold Guardian'; of an organisation called The Friends of the Peak District, which has as a core aim the abolition of vehicular rights from all unsurfaced routes in the Peak District. It works closely with other groups, both local and national, who share this aim.
Complaints have been made about this to the PDNPA, but these have been brushed aside, as his membership of this campaigning organisation was a 'personal interest'. This calls the legitimacy of the PDNPA's statement: "Decisions are made in an open and transparent way and Members consider all relevant arguments and evidence put before them before making a final decision," into question.
The FoPD actually quote their supporter Pennell, in his role as ARP Committee Chairman, explaining the 'reasoning' behind his decision to make the closure here
http://www.friendsofthepeak.org.uk/Camp ... he_tracks/
It really is as blatant as that.
In the same document FoPD explains that closing Long Causeway to motors has 'long been a priority' for the organisation. How handy then, to have a leading supporter chairing the 'independent' committee which made the final decision having considered all the relevant arguments.
I'm sure the PDNPA's press 'spokesperson' would be able to come up with an interesting response to all the above facts.
