Leys Lane – Summary of Regulation 7 Representations and Comment

These representations are a summary of the objections to and support for the proposal received. Most respondents made several comments as part of their representation. Individual items of correspondence may be viewed at the National Park offices. Objections

Representation

Comment

Amenity

It is a unclassified road and therefore had undisputable motoring rights which should be upheld.

I come to the park about once every 2 months, spend money which is appreciated by local business and appreciate that the park is for everyone’s use. I think the Peak District National Park should continue to recognise this as they appear to have been doing up until now. Using my motorcycle to explore and enjoy the Peak District National Park is simply my way of getting around. Sometimes I walk, sometimes I hack and sometimes I use my mountain bike.

I have used Leys Lane on my motorcycle for decades. My father has used it before me. The country lanes are for every user. To my knowledge only around 1% of all lanes / tracks / footpaths can be used by vehicle users. Walkers get to use 100%.

This proposed action ( lets be honest, its not proposed, but will happen because the decision has been made) is a loss of my amenity. I have and my family and friends have enjoyed this right for many years.

When I ride in the Peaks, I buy petrol, I buy lunch, I stop for a coffee in the morning, and a pint in the afternoon, I have occasionally purchased a tyre or inner tube. I always spend money on each visit. I believe that this is helpful to local business. Banning motorcycles will remove this spending. Most walkers dont need petrol, and bring a packed lunch. Ask the businesses if they enjoy vehicles in the district.

The Offroad community are a large family and ride the peaks and other areas for the same reasons as ramblers and walkers do, to view and enjoy the spectacular scenery that the countryside has to offer.

The revenue generated by trail riders spending money in the Peaks, on fuel and food and lodging will be eroded. How many horse riders will be stopping and spending? How many horse riders actually ride these lanes.

The National Park is there for the enjoyment & use of all

Leys Lane is an important recreational asset for all users. The Authority is conscious of the limited number of routes available for recreational motor vehicles in the National Park. The physical characteristics of this route means that it is valued by many different users yet there is evidence of conflict and damage occurring on this area of conservation and amenity interest. Whilst it is recognised that motorised vehicle users, in undertaking their chosen form of recreation, also appreciate the special qualities of the area, their continued use of this area by this mode of transport is adversely affecting those special qualities to a more significant extent than other users. In cases where there is a conflict between the NPA’s two statutory purposes, greater weight shall be attached to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage. All recreational users are important to the local

Closing more lanes to motorised vehicles will impact the lives of this minority group more than you can imagine. This passionate group of riders respect the countryside and just want to be able to enjoy the land in a different and challenging way to others.

Ruin my quality of life and take my revenue out of the Peak District

I am a 46 year old company director , who has worked hard all of my life paying over 1millionpounds in direct taxes . And to enjoy this country I like to get out green laning with a group of similar hard working tax paying respectable citizens . our enjoyment which does not cause any Long term effects to our wonderful countryside is been quashed at the click of fingers of people who have never even tried this sport.

I use this route as part of a tour sightseeing by motorcycle, closing this lane would spoil my enjoyment of touring the Peaks.

The PDNPA should think of every ones pleasure of the area and let all users remain using this lane.

This lane is a quiet and enjoyable road to ride along. In 15 years of use I have encountered barely any other users and do not see why vehicular users should be stopped from using it. I know it is portrayed as a well used footpath and bridleway but I think the truth is very different. It links a small community to a single carriageway, de-restricted road with no footpath. This is not a road often used by walkers and horse riders for those very reasons! What awaits them at the end is not somewhere they wish to go. Unless we are to believe they go down it and then return to the village after a just a few minutes walking. Vehicular users have no such problem and use this road as a link which keeps them off the main roads and on the rural, quiet roads where the countryside can be appreciated more. Why should they be not allowed to use it when almost no-one else does?

Leys lane is an important lane for Green Laners due its location. Its acts as an important link to the wider network of green lanes.

As a legal trail rider I am able to enjoy this area and clear litter repair damaged structures where I can I respect all other user of the wonderful country side

These lanes are part of our heritage

Green laning is still a way of seeing parts of the countryside that I would not see any other way

When off road bikers visit the peak district they more often than not stop over in B&B/bunkhouse accommodation and buy fuel and food while out and about-usual weekend spend is upwards of £200 per bike. A bit more than the sandwich and flask brigade. Seems you want to drive the spenders out!

This TRO will take away my right to enjoy of the PDNP when i visit with the rest of my

economy.

family, as we have used this lane and it is a part of route we use to get the most out of the lovely countryside that we would not otherwise see.

Leys Lane is the only BOAT leading to Longstone where there is 17 public footpaths for walkers to enjoy without encountering other traffic.

Takes away the freedom to enjoy the more remote areas by the less ablebodied, disabled, infirm, elderly, who can only access these areas by vehicle.

To remove vehicular access would reduce the opportunities for me to enjoy the amenities of the area, and recreation in the area.

This proposal represents a loss of facility rather than an enhancement.

I and my friends use this lane to contact to other lanes in the area, we often stop for refreshments at the cafes at the top of Monsal Head, village shops especially such as those in Hartington, Eyam and Hope.

The Ordnance Survey Map OL24 clearly shows at least four other paths in the immediate area offering plenty of potential and access to other users should they wish not to share the lane, therefore the motorised usage of the lane has no detrimental impact on conserving or improving the amenities.

It provides a rare opportunity to enjoy the country side in an exciting way and gives people a shared hobby.

"Affording better opportunities for the public to enjoy the amenities of the area, or recreation." What is being proposed is in direct contradiction of the above statement.

Owners travel from far and wide to drive the many beautiful lanes in the Peak District, of which Leys Lane is one of

Vehicle owners put lots of time, effort and money in to preparing their vehicles for these sometimes challenging days out and should not be restricted in coming to the Peak District

Total bans don't improve the park. Instead they destroy the unique motoring heritage of the Peak District National Park. This is a very valuable cultural heritage that meets criteria for this special quality as set out by the Park Authority itself. The ramblers association was only formed in 1934 whilst the Motor Cycle Club was formed in 1901. Trail motorcycling on the green lanes of the park pre dates the rambling movement

Although I have walked many lanes and fells since living here from an early age. It seems a delight to be given places to go and experience for the new hobbies Im now involved in.

This is an important link to lots of green lanes and lovely rides in and around this area. My friends and I come to visit and as a consequence also spend a lot of money with local businesses in the area. To remove vehicular access would reduce the

opportunities for me and friends to enjoy the amenities of the area, and recreation in the area.

I used to walk or cycle throughout the Peak District. Owing to the early onset of arthritis, I now find it impossible to do this. My only way of continuing to enjoy this area is through using motorised transport (a low powered motorcycle).

It seems you intend to destroy a long history of vehicular access along ancient routes. We (the public) have long enjoyed the pleasure of driving on well defined routes across the countryside. This is a right enshrined in law.

While I would love to ride my motorcycle along legal byways more often I feel that the park authority and too many individuals make it a less than inviting place to ride.

I have disabled family members who I take out on these rights of way as they cannot walk, if you were to put a traffic regulation order enforce this would be heart breaking for them and would mean that they would not see the wonderful scenery again.

It is such a pleasure to experience the views & natural beauty experienced travelling slowly through such countryside & I feel it it would be a sad loss if these rights are withdrawn.

By restricting lanes and trails then their usage decreases which often results in them becoming more overgrown, which then discourages more people from using them resulting in a downward spiral with the trail becoming unusable by anyone.

It is part of my route to visit friends in Litton

I am unable to walk into the hills through a disability but I am able to use a small light motorcycle and I know others in a similar situation. Am I to be denied the pleasure of the open countryside by the above?

I have been riding my motorcycle along it for the past 15 years and leading groups as part of my business for the last 12 years on average around twice a week all year around.

Leaving the lane open to all types of user allows all to retain the amenity.

I regularly use 'The Crispin' public house in Great Longstone for lunch stops. We are warmly welcomed. If this route closes then it is not likely that we will bring groups as the areas green lane network is under so much threat. A loss of income to the pub.

I have travelled to the Peaks National Park many times to enjoy both walking and driving the by-ways, staying in local B&B's and eating at some of the fine public houses. I've taken part in green-laning trips organised by Land Rover clubs which have raised over £1000 for the area air ambulance service and am proud to be associated with organisations like GLASS which have strict guidelines to prevent damage to lanes and minimalize inconvenience to other users.

4x4's also offer the opportunity to provide disabled access to remote areas that would not be otherwise possible as well as providing assistance to walkers and riders in difficulty. In some areas a sprained ankle can cost the emergency services many thousands of pounds, necessitating specialist equipment and transportation when a simple lift to a parked car is all that’s really required.

It is an ancient road and should be preserved as a road for vehicles to use

As a tourist destination for trail bikes and 4x4s the peak district should be managing these roads not closing them, there will be a loss of revenue from these visitor's that local businesses can I'll afford in this current economic climate.

Other users are not losing any amenity - it is simply a shared amenity

Other users have access to a plethora of other paths, while the byways open to vehicles are dwindling, and their extent covers double figure mileage only, while footpaths cover thousands of miles in this county.

Participate and enjoy the greenlining activities with my off road motorcycle. I get to see so much more scenery in a unique way with the added adventure that some of these routes permit.

Areas of natural beauty attract a variety of custom which ultimately benefit the community as a whole. That includes motorised vehicles. A lot of off roaders travel great distances to ride and experience different parts of the country. It should be protected and looked after by all including riders but if there are designated routes this is feasible and everybody following a code of conduct.

I am the owner of a local business and am currently disgusted at the total lack of thought given to this and any other closures. We seem to be intent on deterring anyone from the area. The people we are trying to deter are those who accept that we all have to make a living. The message we are sending is very clear and that is please don't visit the peak district. There has to be a way that we can make the peak district accessible to all, not just bow to demands of a minority. After all that is why it was founded. we should be approaching this in a much more positive manner in order that we can attract all visitors.

This is a very important link on our regular trips to the peak district as it leads us to the much needed refreshment establishments at Monsal head, we normally spend around £50 between a group of 4 riders on lunch and I am sure that the loss of business to the cafe and pub would have an effect on the viability of these businesses.

We only have access to 3% of lanes in the Peak District and closing all these lanes will be taking away the right for everybody enjoying the Peaks beauty.

They are also a part of our history and our rights of way what have been accessed for

hundreds of years, and it is vital we continue to uphold the maintenance of all byways and rights of way for future generations to enjoy.

Having a 4x4 and there being roads that i can drive gives me the same opportunities as healthy people that can also walk the same roads, having a heart condition as with other people not having the fitness to walk distances we would be unable to see the same sights and experiences that healthy people that wish to walk have, basically the fitter and younger people are the more there allowed to do,

I believe these ancient roads should remain as such, roads, for people to enjoy and keep for history

This is a beautiful trail to travel, be it on foot, horse, cycle, or motorcycle. the damage and erosion argument is thin, all users will leave some mark on it.

I am disabled. I have enjoyed using this and many other Green Lanes all my life. Sadly now my only means of accessing these amenities is by use of a mechanised tricycle. I understand if this order goes through, it will become illegal for me to access this ROW. I would ask that you consider my position and that of others both disabled and elderly to which places like this are a rare joy.

It is rightly stated that the PDNPA has a duty to preserve the special qualities of the countryside within the Park – this must also take into consideration the important historic features of the area. Leys Lane has been a route over which traffic, including MPVs, have had a right to pass for much longer than the Peak District National Park has been in existence. It would therefore seem reasonable that PDNPA should have a duty to equally preserve this historic right, as this forms part of the essential characteristics of the Park.

I ride this lane with my father....please leave us something...we are nice people

The impact of vehicular use in the park is in itself a measure of the popularity that this form of recreation within the general public.

The Peak District has a uniquely rich heritage of motorcycling that is of international importance. This is a Victorian heritage that predates the Kinder trespass by at least 32 years.

Enjoyed the exploration of the wonderful country we live in. As time and motoring progresses I find it more and more dangerous to us the tarmac roads as car drivers are less and less observant and the possibility of being hit by a car gets higher and higher Since taking up trail riding some 15 years ago I have found that riding unsurfaced routes has both improved my riding skills and provided me with a relatively safe environment to continue my enjoyment of motorcycling. As I am sure you would find from Police and other statistics motorcyclists and all other users of byways are less likely to be involved

in accidents than on any other type of highway in the country. As age and infirmity catches up with me, I suffer from arthritis, diabetes and have an abdominal hernia which all no limit the activities I can take part in. In the past I have lead groups of young people on walks, cycling, and gorge walks in the Peak Park.

I am a regular user of BOAT's and other unsurfaced routes via a motorcycle in the peak District due to damage to my knees preventing me from walking uphill or down hill for any great distance. I have enjoyed the use of the is old mining road for several years now

It is a route that was part of the industrial heritage of this country providing access for lead miners and transporation of the produce.

Natural Beauty

The special qualities that are referred to are subjective and apply only marginally to this lane which was hardly used by anyone, pedestrians included, until the publicity of the TV exposure which showed people walking up and down with dogs and children every few seconds. It doesn't happen in reality.

I have read and heard anecdotally that noise is a big reason for residents asking for vehicular restrictions. Silence is not a requirement of Peak District National Park enjoyment. When not on my motorcycle, I hear tractors, chainsaws, strimmers, petrol lawnmowers, users shouting at children and dogs etc. It’s all part of country life.

Is difficult to see how motorised traffic is damaging wildlife unless it happens to be sat in the road as traffic passes.

Often use my motorcycle to gain access for the purpose of birdwatching and I have never noted that it has caused an adverse effect upon the wildlife. I understand that great crested newts may be found in the ponds near to the area but I have never seen one on the lane. Use by motorised vehicles shows absolutely no adverse effects upon wildlife in the area.

How can noise of motor vehicles using this lane be counted as a valid reason, when the proposed closure is well within ear shot of Moor Lane. Motor vehicles do not detract from any suggestion of a focus on quiet outdoor countryside recreation associated with the wide open spaces, wildness and tranquility to be found within the National Park, for this statement to be true, ALL motor vehicles would have to be banned from the entire park!

The reasons given for the making of the order are very generic and I do not believe or agree that continued use by mechanically propelled vehicles on this route would have an adverse impact on the ecological, archaeological and landscape interests, the natural

National Parks were designated on grounds of their scenic value and recreational opportunities. The route is not only a means to access special qualities but also a valued part of those special qualities. The historic nature of the route and its setting in the landscape as well as the variety of natural and cultural heritage features adds to the experience of using the route. The route also gives the opportunity for quiet enjoyment and to experience tranquillity, one of the special qualities that people value most about the Peak District National Park. Noise from motorbikes in particular can carry over large distances. Evidence is available to show that environmental damage is occurring as a result of motor vehicle recreation, both directly and indirectly. The impacts on the natural beauty of the National Park, and on its special qualities, are not just confined to the linear routes, but also affect the wider environment. This impact and the anticipation of the presence of motorised users can detract from the experience and enjoyment

beauty, amenity and recreational and educational value of the area, and the special characteristics of the route. Many of the issues highlighted appear to relate to areas outside of the boundary of the route which are not directly affected by the traffic using the route, others are weak or just stating the obvious.

Ecological arguments are spurious ie great crested newt habitats etc as these animals have clearly thrived in the presence of passing vehicles, similarly with the arguments citing verges etc. It could, in fact, be argued that to take away vehicular access would threaten the predetermined ecological balance and that by interfering with the current balance of use by vehicles, walkers and animals is to set foot into unknown and potentially species threatening actions.

All roads started out the same way as Leys Lane, they were all unsurfaced at one time but as time progressed these rights of way evolved and eventually finished up tarmaced so that all vehicles could enjoy the freedom of mobility.

The lanes from which we get our enjoyment are so much closer to nature than the unnatural tarmaced roads that blight the landscape.

The documents you have provided imply that this is a very quiet peaceful area, yet no mention is made of the huge Longstone quarry just over the hill and the impact of the residents of the Caravan site have on the flora and fauna on the side of the lane. Great play is made about the wild life and the SSI, these seem have have thrived very well whilst vehicles have used this lane for centuries, so I can't see what benefit stopping vehicles will have

Mention is made of "Thousands of years of human influence which can be traced through the landscape" surely an unmade road also shows man's influence and should remain in use and not be lost forever.

As for arguments against mechanically propelled vehicles causing too much noise that frightens wildlife, If this were the case hedgerows and the sides of motorways would be barren of all species except insects.

This BOAT does not suffer from many of the issues relating to vehicle use with respect to severe erosion of surfaces or of any proven environmental impact

Properly silenced (road legal) motorcycles do not have a significant noise impact in the countryside. A tractor is far more noisy.

To say that vehicles somehow 'impact' on the tranquility of the area is untrue and inflammatory. If it were true then many tarmac lanes running through the Peak District should also be closed as the noise and frequency of traffic is far far greater than on Leys Lane.

Appendices 1 and 2 contain no relevant information regarding the use of the route by

by other users. The reference in section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to the purpose of understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of National Parks suggests a focus on quiet outdoor countryside recreation associated with the wide open spaces, wildness and tranquility to be found within the National Park. (Defra 2007) Natural beauty should not be confused with wilderness. The definition of natural beauty recognizes that England has a landscape that is formed through the interaction of man-made and natural processes. It includes the wildlife and cultural heritage of an area as well as its natural features. Tranquillity is more than simply noise; it includes the landscape setting, natural sounds and visual intrusion.

vehicles and there is no suggestion that any of this has been, or could be, endangered by the use of recreational vehicles on the route itself. Only agricultural vehicles may use any of the land adjacent to the route and their damage potential is huge.

It is the insensitive and unnecessary "maintenance" of the route by DCC that has had much more impact on the natural beauty of the route than the rightful use that it has been put to.

I also disagree with the argument of wildlife and its habitat being disturbed as only the lane itself is used and not the surrounding hedges or verges, unless the verge has to be used because inconsiderate walkers refuse to give us tthe right of way.

A properly silenced motorcycle has little impact on tranquility

The noise issue is irrelevant as all motorcycles have to have a valid MOT certificate and use silencers to be below legal levels of noise.

It is assumed that motorised vehicles destroy and detract from the natural beauty or habitat. Riders pass the route in a good amount of time and don't hang around whilst equally abide by the code for all riders and drivers. The noise from a motorised vehicle lasts mere minutes where for hikers and walkers depending on size of group and their purpose can be contested.

The lane lies near several protected area BUT NOT within them. Therefore by the very nature of the lane falling outside this area it should be be subject to the same restrictions.

No explicit statement of necessity, but are at best vague in their relation to the objections being made or the certainty of the facts being laid out to support any restriction e.g "..probable medieval origin."

We do not find the motorised vehicles either visually or aurally intrusive, no more than any other traffic on the road.

Leys Lane is an unsurfaced, unclassified county road built for the purpose of carrying vehicular traffic ,that IS their character

The wildlife breading near the lane is currently less disrupted by motorised vehicles than walkers, especially those with dogs. Walkers pass through an area slowly, which maximises any disturbance to wildlife & dogs will find ground nesting birds by investigating areas adjacent to the road. A motorcycle or cyclist will traverse the road more quickly so have less impact on wildlife.

The biodiversity that exists alongside this road is solely due to the use of this road by vehicles and will be lost once walkers have sole usage.

Note one of the ‘historic’ sites you wish to preserve adjacent to the route is a lead mine. I would respectfully suggest that lead mining is not an environmentally-friendly activity:

indeed it is far more damaging than motorcycling. Yet preservation of the lead mine is a priority, while the motorcycling heritage is to be driven out.

The route is ‘remote and tranquil’ yet joins two tarmac roads, is on the edge of a village and adjacent to a farm, a campsite and a livery stable, for which it provides access. As previously stated: it passes the site of an old lead mine. Since when was mining ‘tranquil?

Damage

No damage is caused by motor vehicles on any of the two lanes.

Do not think motorcycles are a problem,all the damage I have seen is quite clearly done by 4x4 vehicles.

The lane is in good order and not damaged at all

I don't think m/cycles do very much damage but 4wheel drives are something else.

I have used this lane for many years, in my opinion it is now in better condition than it has been for many years

All use of byways will damage them ,by what ever means eg walkers or motor bikes

A motorcycle has two wheels and trail bikes generally are of a weight not much more than a cycle and significantly less than say a horse and rider.

If the lanes were managed and maintained non of them would need to be closed. It is clear the majority of the damage is water damage and bikers get blamed as easy targets

This lane has been resurfaced which for all activities is an improvement but i noticed that NATURE was already having an affect on it with water damage already noticeable

The road surface does not display wear from excessive or inappropriate vehicular use although in a couple of small areas one can see where rain water wash might have a small effect, simple improved drainage channels would prevent this from happning.

Using the damage is a weak excuse, all use of the lanes has an impact.

The driving of these routes is a very slow and careful process so as not to damage the surfaces and the vehicles.

If the PDNP authority cared about erosion paths would be properly policed, numbers would be restricted to only a few walkers per week and not during weather that is too dry or too wet.

Although the removal of vehicle rights of way from a short route such as this seems reasonable, it will not solve the main reasons for the closure; ie possible risk of damage due to wheel tracks, as the land owner and their agents will continue to be able to use it and this will usually involve much larger vehicles than small 4x4, modern agricultural

The order is not being made on the grounds of preventing damage but instead relating to amenity and conservation. The NPA is not making the TRO to obviate the duty by the Highway Authority to maintain the route. The NPA is not the Highway Authority with its attendant responsibilities for maintenance. Maintenance is a separate matter to the reasons for making the order although the state of disrepair of the route is a factor for the NPA to take into account when considering the impact on natural beauty and amenity. The natural beauty and amenity of the area and of other users is affected by motorised vehicle use on this route. Vehicle use contributes to the route deterioration and the state of disrepair can detract from the amenity of the route and area. Derbyshire CC, as the Highway Authority, repaired the route November 2013. In the event of damage to a highway and which may or may not be caused by a lack of maintenance, TROs will be made if it is necessary to protect the natural beauty or amenities of the area

practice uses many differing large equipment, not just tractors but earth moving equipment and heavy trailers, this coupled with the reduced maintenance on a non vehicle ROW will cause much greater damage than the occasional recreational use.

This lane is wide all the way along. It has a good strong surface and is well drained.

The trail has not changed in character in years.

Leys lane can be driven safely by a 110inch wheel base land rover with ease and therefore the PDNPA suggestion that it is a pinch point is risible

Perhaps you should pursue DCC over the damage and loss of vegetation caused by their careless and unnecessary route "maintenance".

Given that agricultural traffic is the most regular and serious source of damage by vehicles, why is this being excepted from the restrictions?

Even the local inhabitants were outraged by this hacking back of the surrounding vegetation and the ripping up of the natural base of the road. It is a shameful deceit to try to blame the use of the route for such official vandalism. It has also made the route much more open to damage by weather as the natural firm surface has been replaced by a loose and easily damaged one. No useful drainage work has been done to divert water away from the surface.

While I do concede that illegal and excessive documented 4 x 4 usage has contributed to the damage on this lane, the remedy is prosecution of those users, under the Highways Act, as it is illegal to damage the highway. To close the road is in itself illegal, this is known in law as the Queen’s Highway and the council has a legal duty to maintain it. TRO in itself will not improve it, or stop illegal use. The application of the law is the only way forward here and illegal users should be prosecuted. This does not mean that legal and law abiding users need to be excluded.

There is no evidence that motorcycles cause any significant damage to a reasonably well maintained surface; their weight is low, they move slowly on these type of lanes and it is clear to any observer that heavier 4 x 4’s cause the bulk of any damage, as do horses. Horses weigh up to 1000 pounds,( plus rider) the weight and repeated footprint x 4 being placed through a steel shoe on a small area , while most motorcycle weight around 200 lbs, plus rider, and the load is spread wider, and less aggressively, i.e. no impact. There is research and statistics to back this up, published by Defra and others

Wheel ruts are mentioned as a reason for the closure, if the lane is used by Farm vehicles then that is where the ruts are coming from, a motorcycle makes a very small impression in the ground as opposed to a tactor and trailer.

Please do not reduce access for all where there is currently legal access, you must not be seen to be the instigators or illegal access by not maintaining current public ways.

If this PTRO was to become law it would become illegal for me to ride my 30hp 120Kgs trail bike on this lane yet I could, in theory, legally drive a 200hp tractor with trailer all the way up the legal maximum gross axle weight of 24,390Kgs making a closure on conservation grounds a complete nonsense

Discrimination

The lane has been singled out for closure only as a result of publicity from a BBC4 TV programme

There are a number of tarmac roads in the Peak Park which are just as narrow and 'special' as Leys Lane, and there is no suggestion that they should be closed to traffic.

This lane does not deserve to be one of the lanes threatened with closure, but it is insignificant in comparison to the really iconic lanes in the Peak Park which you are trying to close. The effort and expenditure being put into this by the PDNPA is a waste of public money, and I object strongly to this in the light of drastic cuts elsewhere in the PDNPA budget.

It is a road...I don't like people driving on the road outside my house...but that’s what it is for

Also concerned members of the Audit committee who will pass a motion for this TRO to be made, are members of Anti motoring rights groups and there is a clear conflict of interest and likely bias. So I do not believe all interests will be fairly considered in this process.

If more TRO’s or indeed total bans on recreational vehicles are imposed then surely this is singling out a specific user group unfairly.

The outcome of this consultation has already been decided, but I will continue objecting.

How can you take away my right to use a right of way, that has been a right of way for decades. This is completely unfair, and wrong.

This serves no purpose other than denying motor vehicle users, their legal rights

It will discriminate against my leisure activities in favour of horse riders, cyclists and walkers, all of which I happily share these areas with at present.

By stopping is riding these lanes you are limiting us further as to where we can ride yet I see no restrictions on where walkers/ramblers can wander. Walkers already have access to a huge area and huge amounts of trails to walk in which to enjoy the scenery in their chosen mode of transport 'their legs' why should we hypothetically have our legs cut off to open up these routes to walkers when they already have vast amounts of walkways and routes compared to the trail riding community.

The proposal of this lane is yet again another act of listening to a few and not taking into

The National Park is for everyone and use of recreational motor vehicles on routes with proven rights is a legitimate activity. The Authority does not have a policy of banning use of these green lanes as a matter of principle, and there are opportunities for recreational motor vehicle users to enjoy the area on other routes by their chosen mode of transport. The Authority will promote opportunities for everyone to understand and enjoy the National Parks’ special qualities in a responsible way but where there is a conflict with the conservation of these special qualities then action will be taken including the use of TROs where appropriate. It is the Authority’s view that recreational motor vehicle use needs to be managed on some ‘green lanes’, and that this may include restrictions on use using the powers granted to NPAs. This is assessed on a case by case basis. Where there is a need to preserve the amenity and conserve the natural beauty of the route this may outweigh the needs of mechanically propelled vehicular users of the route notwithstanding that such a restriction will affect the expeditious and convenient use of the route by mechanically propelled vehicles. The route will still be available for non-motorised

account what other people are saying and as to why they are saying it. More routes should be open to trail riders as they respect the land appreciate it for what it is and are sickened at the fact that they get closed because some people say that they destroy years of wildlife when in actual fact they don't do any more damage than nature, walkers, cyclists and the weather.

Do horse riders , walkers and cyclists have more rights than motorcycle trail riders. Do they behave more responsibly.

This lane is totally suitable for vehicles and this is simply another tactic to get rid of bikers and recreational vehicles. We will not go away, you are enforcing bigoted behaviour and bullying tactics. This lane has been used regularly by many user groups, quite happily apart from a small group of self important people who are incapable of seeing the bigger picture.

Their duty is to provide access for all,to prohibit one section of society is immoral and shows prejudice to a minority which breaches their human rights.

Would seem the panel and committees making the decisions on these lanes are corrupt and not impartial as I do believe at least one if not many are representative is in a group trying to ban vehicles from the lanes.

It is my right to use this lane along with anyone else who wishes to.

National parks are damaged by walkers much more than mpv user because of the sheer volume of footfall.

The PDNP authority are being unduly influenced by other user groups and NIMBYs to the detriment of one smaller group.

Vehicle rights in the PDNP are bottom of the priority list and that your bias is towards closure rather than working to improve amienity The percentage of legal routes within the park are reducing rapidly and your obvious stategy of closure is unfounded and I believe a breach of. your remit to allow access for all. Compare the numer of paths, bridleways and cycle routes to BOATS in the park and the numbers speak for themselves. The reasonings on this proposal are to be frank ridiculous and really show the one sided approach of the authority.

Existing public rights of way for motor vehicles should remain just that unless genuine reasons are presented warranting their downgrading. The objections of a small minority of cyclists , horse riders and ramblers should not be considered, on the grounds that there are numerous alternative routes available to them if they do not wish to encounter motor vehicles.

This is directly against the Park's own strategy of welcoming "all" users to enjoy "diverse" recreational activity.

use and the proposed TRO will not prevent those with limited mobility using horse-drawn carriages or tramper style vehicles. Reasonable access can also be provided for disabled users. There are also users with other kinds of disability such as hearing or visual impairment, or learning difficulties that might be affected by motorised users on the route. The damage and associated loss of amenity also affects users of this route. The Authority operates a democratic process via the consultation and the consideration at committee. 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. The register of members interests are recorded at www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/register-of-members-interests. Members may have personal interests which may not be prejudicial to the decisions taken.

It contravenes my civil rights. I should be free to travel on this route using a motorbike.

My fear that the authority claims of damage to the lane is an excuse to take action against a legal minority group.

Because of a few bad apples we are being tarred with quite an offensive brush.

Closing this lane to motorists is tarring all users with the same brush and punishing the considerate motorists because a few reckless actions by the minority.

I have used this route in the past, on a quiet road legal motorcycle and refuse to be tarred as a yobbish, speeding,menace. the opposing views, are a very small minority of people who oppose motor vehicles, of all types, but still use their own cars to drive to the start/finish point of their rambles.

We as trailriders are being excluded from participating in our hobby all across the country.

The lane should be for everyone to enjoy and not reserved for groups of users who already have the vast majority of lanes reserved for them.

This and other road closures are being driven by an unelected group that are unaccountable and affiliated to groups that see the Peaks as theirs, not to be shared by motorists or anyone that does not share their bigoted views.

I have recently been up kinder scout and seen the erosion and the need to put stone walkways but don't hear about these being closed

A decision to prohibit 2-wheel vehicles from the lane would appear to be based upon a prejudice against motorcyclists rather than on objective grounds. Living in a democracy demands that we respect and support the views and choices of minorities just as long as they are not damaging to the well being and enjoyment of us all.

I have used this route for over 10 years and consider the proposal to restrict use of the route by vehicles to be an infringement of my rights as a regular user of the route.

Points are made on conflict due to width, This is the same on a lot of tarmaced roads in the area and as agriculture vehicles are exempt I feel this contradicts the TRO.

Process is not 'fair' and therefore not lawful. There is no doubt over what the decision will be. There is not one single party on the PDNPA who has a genuine belief or interest to keep any of these lanes open, and therefore the process is not and cannot be a fair one. The PDNPA will inevitably decide to apply this and every other TRO they propose. The decision making group is therefore dysfunctional and cannot fulfil their duties because they are incapable of acting fairly

It's farm land both sides so farm vehicles will be using it

This proposal is a blatant discrimination against motorcyclists and can only be the thin end of the wedge to eventually ban all vehicular access in the peak. motorcyclists also

like to use the peaks ameneties and should not be singled out.

A result of a minority of rogue car and motorcycle owners treating paths and tracks without due care. Their actions are prejudicing the vast majority of off-road vehicle users who not only treat the tracks and fellow-users with respect and courtesy, but also spend a great deal of time repairing the same tracks and educating their colleagues in their correct use. I appreciate that in order to preserve such tracks it is easier and cheaper to ban all forms of transport from them rather than police their use, but it is grossly unfair to penalise legitimate users from enjoying their hobby in order to follow the easiest and cheapest solution. This is not the correct solution, nor is it the fair solution. The lead objectors to vehicles using off-road tracks are a tiny minority who have adequate time on their hands to organise, plan and sponsor large campaigns in order to apply constant and vociferous pressure to the Peak Park management.

Banning one group of users is neither acceptable nor democratic; it is the cheapest option and it bows to the petty wants of a tiny and vocal majority who cannot understand the interests of fellow human beings unless they align exactly with their own. The Isle of Man and large parts of the Lake District and the Forestry Commission govern and control off-road use fairly and with equanimity. They benefit from the large numbers of off-roaders who visit the areas with the express intent of making use of the facilities.

The Peak Park is now one of the most strictly limited areas for off-road vehicles in the Country. Soon all motor sport will be effectively banned in the whole of the Peak. Even organised events on private land are being curtailed because of the same vocal minority who wish to close all tracks to vehicles.

The Peak is large enough for everyone to enjoy their chosen hobbies, be it on foot, on horseback, on two wheels or on four. Unfortunately, the record shows that the Peak District management is not up to the job of resolving such issues and it is fully expected that yet another Bridleway or track will be lost forever to the petty wishes of a tiny number of local dog-walkers who pollute the ground and allow it to become overgrown and impassable.

Other users don't constantly face the harassment and discrimination that is been hoist onto all trail riders and other motorised users because of the very small minority. I find it preposterous and very distasteful that an organisation such as the PDNPA, is allowed to act in such a way that is discriminating one type of user against others. In the Peak District National Park, there are thousands of ROW open to various ranges of other users and that these have vast amounts of money thrown at them to maintain them. However the fractional percentage of ROW (I believe it to be less than 2.5%) open to motorised vehicles, get very little maintenance and any costs that managing them

incurs, is constantly thrown back in our face as been vastly vehicle users fault. However a majority of these highways are managed under the highways department, the cost of maintenance comes out of there budget and not the budget that is provided for the PDNPA and as my trail motorcycle is road legal and I have to pay my road fund licence, I pay for this maintenance directly. I also pay for this through the higher rate of tax put onto fuel duty.

I believe the Authority are going beyond their remit in making this decision to effectively ban motorised vehicles from routes such as Leys Lane, as it is discriminatory against those persons who choose to enjoy the Park in this way.

When single issue focus groups are allowed to flourish along with biased views of senior people within the PDNPA this then becomes the slippery slope of exclusions.

The authority appears once again to bow to the lobbying of a self interested minority who do not enjoy the support of the majority of local people who are quite prepared to share with all users so that the national park is available to all not those who seek to regiment and control every activity other than their own. I live in the village and have done so for many years.

I consider it a full gone conclusion that this lane, then the next, then the one after will be systematically closed , all in the name of environmental protection and enhancing the experience of other users of the park.

If it is illegal users that are a nuisance then the law should deal with them, not prevent free access to our roads for everyone else

These are public rights of way not just for a select few who would like to stop something that they don't enjoy so nobody else should enjoy it either.

Further erosion of the Byways of this country only serves to discriminate those that prefer motor vehicles to access the great outdoors. many of these propositions are built on anecdotal opinions and biased research on the true impact of motor vehicle use.

Shouldn't all members of the committee be impartial and not drive it in the direction of their personal beliefs.

Users should not be penalised for choosing to enjoy the countryside with motorised vehicles.

Discriminating against people who are not as able bodied as some. I refer to those people who are unable to travel down the byways on foot due to physical injury or other disability, but could still enjoy the area via the use of responsibly driven 4x4 vehicles on legal vehicular byways. Not only would the vehicular presence generate extra income in the local area (feeding and watering of passengers), it would no doubt generate additional voluntary help in maintaining routes such as this.

A route which I believe the Park is under a legal obligation to maintain. I suspect the Park organisation has decided to disregard this obligation on such routes by closing them or creating permanent TROs - the cheap and easy way out, discriminating against disabled access. PDNPA always seem to close byways but never have any problems with the amount of foot traffic causing erosion to footpaths etc. Its also strange to note how byways seem to pass through areas of specific scientific interest etc but footpaths do not

I now find that I am in a similar position to those stalwarts of the early communist inspired walking movement who gathered at Kinder Scout for a mass trespass wanting somewhere to walk other than the paved roads of the cities from whence they come, and having been told in no uncertain terms to clear off back to there.

I have broken no laws. Rambling is hugely catered for, as is cycling and horse riding, the only "off road " activity under threat is that of MPV's. The Park authorities seem to be bent on a deliberately obtuse mindset of constantly referring to roads within the park boundaries for MPV's to use that are sealed, thus missing the point of Trail bike riding, that is that it's carried out on unsealed routes, so like rambling, but on wheels.

actions and decisions will be inspected and tested against the standards as laid out in the Nolan report for the behavior of officers for honesty and integrity in all decision making processes, and any actions found to be unsafe or wanting will be assiduously followed up.

Tell me how you can make objective decisions, when the chair is so strongly biased.

A small number of local inhabitants, encouraged by anti-vehicle protesters such as GLEAM, PDGLA and Peak Horsepower have been engaged in a sustained misinformation and hate campaign against vehicle users since Derbyshire County Council investigated the EVIDENCE for the vehicular status of the route and confirmed that its rightful status is that of Byway Open to ALL Traffic. This was upheld by the PINS inspector after a long, expensive and unnecessary Public Inquiry. It is also highly dubious how small anti-vehicle groups who represent no-one but themselves can have such sway over such a large organisation. I hope that the Authority can be certain and demonstrate to the general public that no-one in the decision making process has membership of, or ties to, any of these pressure groups.

I agree measures need to be put in place to mitigate risks throughout the park, but for one group to disagree with another groups' use of an area and then try and remove the privileges of that group should not be condoned by the Authority, especially when such a weak reason is put forward. Had there been numerous bad accidents where signage was not enough then i could understand. But to close a lane and remove the privileges

of certain groups is a little harsh.

Paragraph 17 gives exceptions to the proposed TRO. 17a recognises that the disabled should be allowed access. But this is only by the use of a “recognised invalid carriage”. Under the law (for which these vehicles must comply) such a vehicle is unsuitable for use on the surface of this lane. Hence you are using this to deliberately single out disabled persons and prevent them from enjoying this asset.

There is also no mention of how the closure of the this one route will affect the others in the area.

Don't users of recreational vehicles have rights too? The PDNPA appear to be dismissive of the benefit to the local economy that recreational vehicle users bring, some users may plan holidays in the area, or are the PDNPA only interested in certain types of visitor? As an owner of a recreational vehicle don't I have the right to enjoy the views and enjoy a drive on remote lanes and roads in a National Park that I help fund through taxation

Although you have previously considered this route to be a Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT)some six or seven years ago following a consultation period and good evidence which you duly agreed that it should be a BOAT through proper and lawful process, you have now decided to reverse that decision in a typical cloak and dagger style which unfortunately, is becoming a too familiar style. I believe you are discriminating against a lawful activity and minority group who already have a very wide access to the countryside.

What about my rights as a 4x4 disabled owner it’s not on is it but you will close it won’t you as you never let any one except walkers and ramblers use the country side but as I’m not good at walking due to a car accident when I was stationary waiting at traffic lights I do not fall into the walker/ ramblers bracket so I see the countryside in a 4x4 instead which is taking away my right to roam

The action by the Peak District National Park Authority (PDNPA) to attempt to manage legal recreational vehicle use by closing rights of way and unsealed lanes is highly discriminatory to one minority group of users and visitors. To argue that irresponsible use by a few equates to the rescinding of a legal and historic right enjoyed by many, would seem ill considered and problematic. This is also against the Park’s own strategy of welcoming all users to enjoy the diverse recreational opportunities of the National Park.

The ethos of the National Parks has been forgotten; our national park authorities are no longer champions of our beautiful landscapes and the publics freedom to access these areas but are more concerned with management, economic gain, permits and

segregating user groups. It appears that the ‘least restrictive approach’ to access as adopted by the Countryside Agency (and more recently by Natural England) during the passage of CROW 2000, has been completely forgotten. With Government cuts, merging departments and subsequent job losses affecting many advisory bodies, it appears that we have lost all of our outdoor champions including our National Parks, who are now determined to remove the legal (and often historic) right of one minority group. Set against the backdrop of an increased awareness to get more people into our National Parks, these purposes are completely at odds.

The PDNPA certainly do not appear impartial when it comes to countryside access for different user groups. To me, this is nothing short of corruption.

Please stop trying to take away our rights to ride our trail bikes.... we are not the enemy here

Whilst I can't deny our hobbies has a few idiots, but so do all others. Please allow us to continue to enjoy our free time respectfully.

As my partner is neither a blue badge holder, nor the owner of an invalid carriage, his ability to access and enjoy the amenity of Leys Lane will be prevented by this proposed order. I do not believe that your introduction of these restrictions therefore meet the requirements of the Equality act in the way it is applied to public bodies. I believe you have a duty to ensure equality of access which you are clearly not upholding in introducing this restriction on motor vehicles.

I am entitled to a fair and impartial trial of my civil liberty to use this public motor road by virtue of article 6 of the Human Rights Act, furthermore my article 6 right under this act must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner as provided by article 14 of the same act.

My ability to carry out these activities now gone my only experience of the park is by using my motorbike of tarmac you through your persistent closure of these routes now puts me back on to the roads which are such a death trap for motorcyclist. I hope that through you reduction of the byway network you do not place riders in harms way and contribute to the injury or death of a single person by your insistence on closing these valuable and important roads and byways.

Is it not troubling that there has been no form of discussion (or any option of) with users or user groups, in this day and age when communication is instant it is inexcusable

The real reasons for the banning of Recreational Motor Vehicles are not the ones listed but as part of an overall plan on the part of the PDNPA to disrupt and dissuade a minority user group from enjoying the Green lanes. That this lane in particular is to pander to a small group of residents who are selfishly campaigning against MPV's when

really the PDNPA should sit down and agree a sensible management plan for the use by all users. The lane has been used by vehicles of various descriptions for hundreds of years by residents, local farmers and as a through road for all traffic. to close it to recreational MPV"s is making it a private road for a privileged few and championed by a committee Chairman who has publically aligned himself with a protest group which has publicly stated its aim of denying access.

Displacement

These actions will not stop the illegal users at all...why persecute us 'Fully Road Legal' riders ?...mountain bikes will be next, then horseriders ,then Hikers

The current policy that the PDNPA is pursuing is discriminatory and will eventually lead to the lanes bring used solely by irresponsible law breakers and the influence of responsible users like myself will disappear and their behaviour will get worse. That is unless you can fund the policing required to deter them which I believe would be way too costly.

Acknowledges that the voluntary code is not ALWAYS being adhered to. Once again it is the actions of a minority that are penalising the majority. Adopting this proposal will not stop the actions of an irresponsible minority and will alienate some of the majority; the issues will persist.

The continuation to close lanes will only impact in a negative way on the few lanes that remain unrestricted (i.e increased traffic number )

Once the lanes close I will ride anywhere. You are creating a big problem and its all very short sighted!

We have the right to use this lane currently and by taking this and other lanes away from enduro riders, they and we will end up using lanes and unsurfaced road that will end up causing distress and noise pollution, ultimately we will have to go where we want not where we are allowed, taking up more police time, dealing with more complaints and repairing more roads.

The rights of the law-abiding off-road community who have used this right of way for many years are being ignored. I fear that the minority of off-road riders who are not law-abiding will continue to use it anyway.

There is no where to use a 4x4 more so not that NCC has closed the Destert off road center. So there is now no place to 4x4 users to go and DCC won't supply an alternate place/site so there will no be illegal use of vehicles across the peak park as users have no where else to go.

In Nottinghamshire for example, research into the needs of recreational vehicle users

The Authority recognises that the closure to vehicles is likely to place additional pressure on other routes. However the matter required a specific response within the context of the work on other routes. Monitoring to determine the amount of displacement onto other routes will be undertaken. It is accepted that a TRO will affect legitimate recreational motor vehicle users. If illegal use occurs, this would be addressed with the Highway Authority with regards to the appropriate selection of barriers and the police in relation to enforcement.

concluded that ‘it is important to account for the needs of recreational vehicle users in an holistic manner, so that illegal use does not increase or legitimate use is not displaced into areas managed by other authorities’ (Evans, R et al, 2004)

User conflict

A group (6) of TRF Riders were out last Friday (Slight rain all day) How many 'other users' did we come across in 100 miles of riding.?.. None ,no other bikes, no Horseriders, no Hikers, No Cyclists, No 4x4 'ers

Bet there are WAY more horseriding accidents than trail bikes

I am quite happy to stick to the many bridle paths if my horse seems a bit wary of other vehicles.

I don’t use a noisy high powererd motorcycle. Mine is almost silent, with trails tyres that do no damage, I always stop for walkers and horses, and am always polite to other users.

Black Harry and Leys Lane do not have many horses using them and never have. When I ride the lanes I always stop and or move to one side, turn the engine off and sign for anyone with me to do the same. In all the time I have ridden I have never had a problem with any horse rider/s. often chat and say hello. There is and always has been room for us all to share the lanes. Keep Them Open, especially for motorcycles.

It appears from your own booklet on the area, that there already exists significant opportunity for other users to avoid MPV's if this is what they want.

I know some motorized vehicles do not behave as they should and I have intervened in the past to talk to some wrongdoers - If I am not there and people like me then the so - called "Illegal offroaders" will have xxx it all up for everyone I have all ways offered my help to your office and DDC and also helped Kevin Lowe and Phil Maycock with assisting their "Stop and have a word/checks" I have always promoted " Ponytreking on two wheels" and this is how I travel around the district be that on a pushy or a motorcycle.

Myself and all my friends that ride are respectful of all other lane users including turning our engines of for horses

National organisations such as the TRF actively encourage the safe and lawful use of such lanes and members are encouraged the show courtesy to other users.

The vast majority of motorcycle Green Lane users are careful and considerate knowing full well there is significant unjust and illogical discrimination against them.

Some of us do not wish to race, and are content dawdling around on byways. I always give utmost respect to ramblers and horse riders

Leys Lane is an important recreational asset for all users. All users need to act responsibly in order to reduce the potential for conflict The nature of the route is such that mechanically propelled vehicles are visually and aurally intrusive and there are difficulties in passing and avoiding other users. Government guidance suggests that ‘a level of recreational vehicular use that may be acceptable in other areas will be inappropriate in National Parks and incompatible with their purposes.’ (Ref: Guidance for National Park Authorities making Traffic Regulation Orders under section 22BB Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Defra, 2007). The NPA’s powers to make TROs only extend to unsurfaced routes.

The Authority does not accept that it is reasonable to expect non-MPV users on a Byway Open to All Traffic to go elsewhere to avoid conflict. There are also alternatives for MPV users where they do not come into conflict with others to the same extent and, for those seeking to use the affected route as a through-road, there are alternative routes on sealed metalled roads in the area. The Highway Authority has a statutory duty to signpost and waymark public rights of way. The route is signposted as a byway.

Some motorists do act recklessly, just as some bicyclists or walkers do but the majority of users are respectful and aware of any likely damage that may be caused by their actions so they drive/ride or walk considerately.

Only been trail riding a short time (motorbike) - but in that time we've rescued animals from rivers, helped farmers round up escaped livestock and assisted a walker with an injury in distress. All users of rights of way seem to get on and work together when enjoying the outdoors

Only conflict of interest is with the parties who want exclusive and selfish, use of this lane.

The lane is clearly marked as a Byway Open To All Traffic so other users should not be suprised to meet vehicles

I have never met another vehicle coming from the opposite direction and neither have I ever a horse rider in the immediate area. Such would not be a problem because motorised users such as myself follow the Code of Conduct prescribed by the TRF.

On this lane I have never met in person a single other user who has made an objection. There is plenty of room for us to pass by each other without any difficulties. In my experience the lane is little used, I ride this lane both midweek and at weekends and it seems that there must be a small volume of pedestrian users.

We always ride insured tax & mot'd well maintained machines.

The peak district is a large enough to share between all users, any impacts due to motorised vehicles is very much localised to the road and not the entire area.

I have used Leys lane on uncountable numerous occasions since taking up trail riding 7 years ago and in this time, I have never come across any other user that was unhappy to see me riding this Highway on my trails motorcycle, or blamed my for any erosion or damage along the length of this Highway

Tolerance and respect of all user groups for each other is required, and respect for the lanes as well, but if all groups respect each others right to their respective past times you are halfway there to protecting the future of the lanes themselves.

I have ridden this lane for many years both by motorcycle and mountain bike. I have never had any complaint from members of the public to its use until a small but vociferous minority of people have decided to target a group of people they do not like

In a recent survey of the general public the mojority of people don't mind motorcycles using these rights off way. It appears to be only the ramblers asscoitiation and the like that want to ban others from their enjoyment so walkers can enjoy theirs.

When I choose routes for my Scouts, if I particularly want to avoid meeting vehicles, I select routes which don't allow vehicles! There is vast choice and does not in any way

spoil or hinder our enjoyment.

As for walkers complaining about speed and feeling threatened, a motor vehicle makes a bit more noise than a speeding mountain bike that suddenly comes upon you. Plus as these are road ALL users must treat them as such.

I do not speed up and down or drive improper, and all my friends are the same

The majority of motorised vehicles users are of and age and attitude to look after the area

Does the park not have enough routes and ROW that can be used by the non vehicle user without a vehicle disturbing them for a mere 5 seconds as it passes at walking pace?

The majority of off road motorists are law abiding citizens who think about the countryside and people sharing the trail as much, if not more, than other trail users.

Vehicular users tend to be the most courteous users, you would be surprised how much they care about the lanes, and how prepared they are to work with councils to prevent the lanes being severely damaged!

I have never experienced any so called 'conflict' of any kind. In fact I have often had a very nice chat with the lady who has horses who more than once has complemented us on our good behaviour.

I'm well aware of a minority of 4x4 enthusiasts that do not abide by the guidelines and the damage and disruption they can cause but unfortunately all user groups have people that are either not aware or don't care for the enjoyment of others. Leaving gates open and climbing over drystone walls are problems I frequently have with the footpath that crosses my own land but I believe that good communication with responsible organisations is more constructive than attempting to restrict access.

The motorized traffic using it today consists of leisure riders/drivers who are all careful and courteous; there is absolutely no reason at all why all the lane's users cannot coexist happily

How do users of the farm, livery and campsite gain access to these premises. Via the adjacent tarmac road and not the unsurfaced Leys Lane. These users would not normally be on this route, necessarily. They may choose to use the adjacent tarmac road. What documented "conflict" has taken place? None has been recorded with Derbyshire Police.

I have been using this route as a recreational motorcyclist since 1979 and have never experienced any conflict with other users of any type. The route is not heavily used by recreational users but is subject to the passing of agricultural vehicles and machinery that is capable of much more extensive damage than any other form of use. Yet this is

still to be allowed.

The recent resurface has made it tidier and safer for all.

The only conflict between user groups I can see is there basically is one user group who object to other user groups using the lane and think they have the sole right to its use.

When I am out riding i ride responsibly and within the law, I always slow down or stop for horses and do the same for walkers, the horse riders are appreciative of my actions however walkers view me with contempt to the extent that they will not move to the side of a lane to allow me to pass, verbally abuse me and generally make me feel I should not be enjoying my hobby.

This weekend 12th/13th October, I noticed very few hikers ( probably 10 ) on the route we took , one of which was Leys Lane. There were about 5 "4x4" vehicles who were apparently trying to hone their offroad abilities and enjoy the scenery.

We live on Moor Rd so see plenty of traffic up and down our road. Although it is stated that bikes etc cause damage it can also be said that large groups of walkers do the same. It is also said that bikers etc can be aggressive when challenged. Well we have had several altercations with walkers climbing over walls or walking up the middle of our road and not wanting to move out of the way!

I have personally rode this lane as part of a organised ride by a local of the Peak District. We were all provided with safety advice and general rules of "green laning", which is also set out in the criteria of the Trail Riders Federation (TRF). We all had a very enjoyable day and I do not believe we caused any inconvenience and or trauma to any other members of the general public. As a point in case we all pulled over to give right of way to others i.e. walkers (which I might add we exchanged pleasantries with).

On the occasions I have travelled these lanes I have never caused any affray or disturbance other than the natural progression of my vehicle (motorcycle in my case).

I am not a boy racer ripping the lanes to pieces, neither do I intend to scare ramblers or animals. I am a 50 odd year old Teacher, who just happens to enjoy riding the old trails in the countryside on my motorbike.

There are relatively few lanes such as this left for mixed use in the Peak District. Many times I have walked along this lane to the Crispin pub with my wife and eight year old child. We are often passed by motorcyclists, the noise alerts us as to their arrival, and we step to one side. They invariably treat us with courtesy and respect, passing slowly before accelerating away. They pose little hazard, and do not spoil the tranquillity of our time on the lane. We think it is rather fun that the riders are often covered head to toe in Derbyshire mud. Let’s us all show tolerance and consideration to all users of such

amenities, and not close them to others who choose to enjoy them in a different way.

I am increasingly concerned at the confrontational attitude that SOME of my fellow horse riders are taking, especially those who claim to represent us. I have to say that I regularly ride byways and unclassified roads in the areas and I have no problem sharing theses routes with motor users, whether trail riders or the very few 4x4 drivers I meet. The ones I meet are invariably well mannered and polite, often opening and closing gates for me. Leys Lane is not really too narrow because it is no narrower than many similar lanes and back roads, yet the Park does not seem to be advocating wholesale TROs on every similar right of way and road. Commonsense and reasonable courtesy are all that is required by all users to enable everyone to continue to enjoy this lane.

Not liking or understanding an activity should not be confused with conflict.

We ride with respect for animals, land owners, farmers, walkers, horse riders, cyclists and any other persons we come across whilst riding. We respect the land and and always ride legally. Please do not compare us with the minority of mindless individuals who ride with no consideration for others because we are certainly not part of them.We are a majority not a minority

Just because you do not agree with another persons perspective of recreation that does not make them irresponsible or inconsiderate.

Responsible and careful driver of a very well maintained landrover who enjoys slow and steady driving along green lanes in the UK

Forcing people to ride more on Tarmac highways will without doubt increase death and injury to both bikers and pedestrians .

I find it odd that the most pertinent document is hard to find and almost hidden away, namely RS1209-Chertpit-Leys-Lanes PDF. This document states that in 2010 66% of all traffic on the western side is agricultural. Trail bike usage, sampled at various periods, from Feb 2009 to Jan 2012, averages out at 6.8/day. There is no way that this tiny average of less than 7 trail bikes per day can be construed as excessive in any shape or form and warrant a permanent road closure

Alternatives

Land needs to be identified where there are no restrictions for Mechanically propelled vehicles that offers better/more exciting off road experiences; people will then choose not to use this lane and the issues will be effectively managed.

The Peak District National Park are very good at trying to educate other users that the Byways and unmetalled roads are not ‘Off Road’ but highways and vehicles using them

The management of recreational motorised vehicles within the National Park is a high priority work area for the Authority. Members of vehicle user groups are on the Peak District Local Access Forum and on the Green Lanes Forum

need to conform to all the legal requirements needed on the usual surfaced roads.

Of course sometimes the TRO’s etc is the only option when maintenance is needed. However, can we keep this as a last resort? Perhaps a 2 wheel exemption can be applied if it is the 4WD vehicles causing the damage.

The TRF have proposed alternatives, why have you not considered them seriously.

I have read your proposal for the re classification of Black Harry Lane to help with your " Bigger Plan" of a nice network of lanes and trails for ponies walkers and cyclists to navigate around the Stoney Middleton /Calver area. I think the linking up of these trails is a great idea but why o why do you feel it necessary to alter what I’d already in operation. As I understand it a concession has been given to use Coombs lane as a cycleway and bridleway. Very good ,top idea . I have been cycling over the last umpteen years. To re classify BHL is just either over officialdom or plan discrimination against other legal users being able to use the lane as indeed I have over the last 30 odd year. It also makes Thunderpit lane a dead end which may be your intention. I have no grievance with anyone be them on or in whatever mode of transport - Why have you - I know a lovely lady who rides the lane twice a week on her horse and she is not bothered either about the restrictions being put on by your dept

I will again offer any help I can to assist - To just close lanes is not the "Only answer"

This should not result in discrimination but plans to address more understanding between the different users of the lane. Driving an activity underground and criminalising a legal activity is not the way forward in a modern, forward facing country.

Please consider allowing motorcycles to use the lane, even if only for a trial period to gather public feed back

If the surface ar becoming damaged the replace with a suitable surface with some road plainings you pay to get rid of these

The condition of the lane has been badly managed. The sides are not kept trim, which would make the lane open to its optimum Farm and 4WD vehicles cause the rutting due to the narrowness of the lane There are plenty of volunteer groups who are more than happy to care for this lane

GLEAM and the RA have a well funded agenda which is trampling over the excellent "Tread Lightly! Scheme

Leave us some legal space to ride and enjoy the space.

About time that you considered the views of the people who live within the Park, and all who enjoy it for what it currently is. The status quo is fine for the majority of people that I have spoken to. Please stop wasting money on this misguided policy and use the savings for something more productive such as keeping parking charges down,

and inform and advise the NPA. Members are aware that a variety of measures can be used to resolve issues around recreational vehicular use. The consultations undertaken offer the opportunity to suggest alternatives and for them to be considered by Members. All consultation responses have been given due regard. The decision to pursue a different course of action after having regard to all relevant considerations doesn’t negate this. Where a least restrictive option achieves the desired outcome then this may be considered to the recommended approach. Priority routes remain priority routes even where a restriction may be in place. The monitoring, management and review of measures adopted will continue to take place. 4-wheeled vehicles have an impact on the route surface and adjacent land by virtue of their width and weight. At certain times on certain sections of the route there may be less impact by motorcycles on the route surface although other impacts remain. The NPA is not the Highway Authority and does not have responsibility for maintenance. The NPA adopts a range of measures in reducing the impact of motorised use. This includes the use of volunteers where the works are of a nature suitable for volunteering.

improving access to these routes for disabled drivers, and hanging on to your assets.

Do not object to the prohibition of 4-wheel vehicles from the lane (as these cause significant damage), I certainly DO OBJECT to the prohibition of 2-wheel motorcycles as these cause minimal damage and probably less than a horse and rider.

The current routes crossing the Peak District are now used in a vastly different way by the current generation, previous generations would be amazed that some people use these routes for leisure, and in the future who knows what the use will be. We do not know what the future holds and I strongly believe that a short term view and banning order should not dictate how the future use occurs. We cannot, and should not try to preserve a snapshot view of the countryside in aspic, who are we to decide that our view is the correct one from now on, and impose our decisions on the future. We also should not choose the easy option in preference to the best solution.

Most people thought managed solutions would be the most sensible way to go, and that banning orders where not a good or reasonable solution.

A management system would be fairer for all users, like a sensible speed limit ,oneway system for ALL users, and a more extreme measure a ban on ALL vehicles more than 2 wheels

I do not believe that to manage the recreational motorised vehicle usage of green lanes and other un sealed highways effectively requires closure to said vehicles. This is no form of management at all.

There are many many more rights of way available to non-motorised traffic in the area where there can be no conflict with motorised vehicles. On the other hand, the number of legitimate and legal rights of way are being systematically reduced for motorised vehicle use. To open more such rights of way would reduce traffic on each available route and help to alleviate any user conflict.

Any user using the lane treat it like they can expect to meet a motor vehicle on it. Such expectation can be encouraged by clearly marking all entrances to the lane with the status of the lane, should anyone need reminding.

As this is a road simply sign post it as such and expect pedestrians to keep off it, or at least keep clear. You wouldn't go walking on the M6 would you? The conflict is mostly due to non-vehicular users being unaware these lanes are roads. They can walk in other places.

Either the use is minimal which can be sustained, in which case leave the lanes as they are for use and enjoyment by the few who want to use them, or the use is higher than can be sustained in which case the authority has a statutory duty to maintain and improve the route. Again I don't remember the last time a motorway was damaged and

the highways authority stating that they would simply close the road rather than repair or maintain it. Most motorcycle users would be satisfied with the absolute minimum maintenance of the surface.

Do not see closure of the lane as any genuine dialogue to the Management of Recreational Vehicles, MPV users have volunteered to help with working parties and voluntary restraint schemes

Walkers and horse riders are more than capable of avoiding damaged tracks if necessary, indeed it is more enjoyable to walk or ride across open country than follow well-beaten routes

The Peak Park is not doing enough to educate all track users or to bring them together to discuss the problem.

Sort out the minority and the majority will look after the country side and teach others to do the same.

A TRO should be a last resort. I do not believe that all possible alternatives have been given due consideration, and would urge all concerned to sit down and find an alternative to a permanent TRO.

Different people like to do different things and if minorities have access to minority areas this leaves the majority mainstream people to enjoy the majority mainstream areas they can access, rather than banning a minority from the minority area they wish to access.

Consider closing all roads within a 20 mile radius of Great Longstone to preserve other wild plants that only choose to grow next to roads?

If people wish to enjoy areas of the National Park away from the distraction of an occasional vehicle then there are many miles of the ROW network and areas where there is a Right to Roam that are available. As an example the map detailing the order shows many other footpaths available but no other Byways which can be used locally

Motoring organisations have indicated that they are willing to accept restrictions in order to improve the green lane network for all users.

If it needs policing then the constabulary should be out there protecting the weak from the strong, closure is just walking away from the problem and inflicts restrictions on road users that has no place in our society.

The number of legitimate and legal rights of way are being systematically reduced for motorised vehicle use. To open more such rights of way would reduce traffic on each available route and help to alleviate any user conflict.

Do not support illegal ‘off road’ nor do I support the idea that there is only a few mandated ways of enjoying the country side. I do support intelligent management and quality access for all.

Perhaps the longer term answer to recreational 4x4 use should be a license system coupled with closed seasons for sensitive routes, rather than a blanket ban.

Instead of excluding certain users find a solution, to the upkeep of lanes. Work with organisations like GLASS more closely and raise awareness of safe vehicular use of lanes. Make them one way if necessary for vehicles, if it is a vulnerable surface, close for the severe weather periods

Introducing a permit for vehicles like a road tax, would generate money for repairs and make it easier to police in such a way everyone can be include enjoying all the different hobbies together!

I see no reason why any one group cannot happily coexist with others and even be of benefit to each other and I myself and many others I know of would be happy to help and carry the necessary equipment and materials to maintain rights of way whether they are for footpath, bridleway or BOAT maintenance.

If you are worried about damage or abuse of the byways then perhaps run a permit scheme as the Kent County Council does

Leys Lane is bordered by an extensive existing footpath network, any of which could be signposted as alternative routes for walkers and could indeed be upgraded to bridleway status to separate vehicular and non-vehicular traffic. Motorised traffic has no such choice.

Could other users not better appreciate the special qualities of the area from the adjacent footpath network than from the enclosed boundaries of Leys Lane?

Which of these alternatives has been tried or even discussed with vehicular users?

might support a one–off seasonal TRO on 4 x 4 use only, but for 6 months only over winter only to allow some repair of the lane to bed in, thereafter return to the open status, and police the lane, and impose the statutory legal enforcement if needed as required for illegal use.

For bikes and Quad bikes it is plenty wide enough. However, I feel 4x4 cars may be too wide for this lane and would understand a TRO for this type of vehicle only.

There is an public way just to the south and west on your map which should be encouraged to be used by non motorised vehicles so reducing the use of this lane. Foot walking has this option, vehicles do not.

Imposing a one way / one direction to the lane may mitigate a lot of the issues that have been mentioned in the report and speed up the flow of 4x4 and other motorised traffic through the lane.

Money would be better spent maintaining drainage. It is proven that most damage is caused by poor drainage rather than the the traffic using it. Seasonal closures, axle

weight limits, axle width limits and permit systems could be used.

Some restrictions are and will be necessary to ensure that the conservation of the places we love visiting continues but this should not mean blanket restrictions. This will only mean the number of ‘illegal’ visitors will increase, will require more policing, will increase bad feeling and will simply transfer the problem to other areas of the National Park and beyond. Perhaps the National Park should start working in partnership with the user groups to find a more suitable way forward, allowing each party to disseminate good practice advice, information on temporary restrictions (and the reasons for this) and be respectful of everyone’s needs. In fact, as stated in a DEFRA report ‘there is merit in adopting a positive approach to motor vehicle use, which engages users and wider stakeholder groups’ (Making the Best of Byways, DEFRA 2005).

If it is truly believed that MPVs are causing damage, then why not implement seasonal prohibitions or a permit scheme? This would be a more fair, inclusive approach, rather than the exclusive one adopted.

To make things fair, why not open a route in a quarry, valley, woods or areas inaccessible to walkers that motorised vehicle users can use without making so much noise

There is no need to exclude electric motorcycles or mopeds from this public motor road.

Information

Historically right of access to this lane is proven to included motor vehicle use, there are no change of circumstance that justify their exclusion soley.

The evidence is manufactured by people like freinds of the peaks members

The poorest justification that you have ever presented to attempt to justify one of your proposals. A few motorcycles and other vehicles have no significant impact and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

An un-elected body is attempting to enforce their own ideological views of who should and shouldn't have access to a LEGAL right of way. Do you actually take into account the views of people who use these rights of way? Have you taken into account the impact on the local economy?

Disagree that vehicular use is significant on the route, and would like to see evidence of this . Note that I would not consider any evidence provided by anyone with a vested interest to be valid.

Could be argued that any quiet road through countryside that reaches a destination also served by another route be considered to fall foul of the statement " believes the need to preserve the amenity and conserve the natural beauty of the route and the area through

The statement of reasons and the route management reports are there to provide relevant factual information; they do not seek to make a judgment on the final decision to be made. The appendices to the statement of reason set out the different components of natural beauty and the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

The legislation allows for TROs to be made on grounds of natural beauty and amenity and the NPA is the appropriate authority to make the decision on whether this outcome would be met by a restriction.

which it runs outweighs the needs of mechanically propelled vehicular use", which in itself is a subjective statement in the extreme.

You do not present any factual evidence and I believe that this proposal is based on the biased attitudes of a few groups that would see an end to my hobby of trail riding. I do not believe that the Peak district Park Authority (an unelected quango) can be trusted to make a fair decision and would like to see this matter resolved by an idependant inquirey.

PDNPA have now fabricated stories about rare flowers and other spurious rubbish to substantiate the latest wave of discrimination against vehicle users

The reasons for TRO are not justifiable, they are simply concocted to serve the interests of a selfish minority.

Your reasons for the TRO look like a carbon copy of the Roych consultation. I don't believe this consultation is anything more than a box ticking exercise and the outcome will be to implement the TRO in full.

could not find any mention of the amount of vehicles that use the lane, only that it impacts the caravan site and stables

Vehicles pass through they pollute the area no more than any other lane - has there been any particular issues with pollution from vehicle use ? have any vehicles affected or driven through any archaeological areas ? How does a 4x4 affect the landscape interest and national beauty ? How does it affect special characteristics ? How can it affect educational value and by imposing a TRO you are reducing the recreational use of the area.

Would seem the use of traffic regulation orders to remove our rights is unlawful. The process effectively re-grades the route as some other type of way, without going through the necessary due process.

It is not logical to close this section of the BOAT but leave open the entrance/exits, unless there is a specific, nefarious object to close the entrance/exits in the future "because they do not go anywhere"

While most of the reasons for the TRO are well rehearsed, including the rather overworked choice of the great crested newt, it is reasonably well known that wild life can adapt around high density traffic, and helped by road designs with corridors to aid in movement of larger animals then species can live side by side. However, in the Peak District, particularly on BOATS where is the evidence that species and plants, even in SSIs are at greater risk? There is no information on traffic densities on this road in particular?

Believe this is part of "A bigger Plan" sponsored by individuals that stand to gain

TROs will be considered where appropriate having regard to all relevant considerations at the time including comments provided in response to the consultation undertaken and by undertaking the balancing exercise provided by s122 of the RTRA 1984. If a TRO is made on a route it does not change the status of the route.

financially out of this closure IE. property prices

The reasons put forward by the authority, in my personal opinion, are nothing more than a work of fantasy driven by the never ending pressure of walkers with whom the authority is complicit.

What is the "Voluntary Code of Conduct" referred to in Appendix 3 and with whom was this agreed?

Which sections of the route are too narrow for a motorcycle to pass?

There is a post outside Dale Farm confirming that it is a multi use route but I am not aware that GLASS, LARA or the TRF were consulted over, or gave permission for, the use of their copyright logos.

What is the justification for suggesting that tarmac is an alternative? Again, the Authority chooses to exercise the Power but shrugs off the Duty.

No overall assessment of route usage is mentioned and does not account for how other routes could be effected by the closure of this one route.

I would also like to know how anyone in a recognised invalid carriage is going to negotiate the surface of Leys Lane unless you have plans to resurface it

How many accidents involving vehicles and members of the public have occurred on Leys Lane in the last 10yrs, and how many of these been reported to the police ? Have you done a survey on the numberof different classes of users on Leys Lane?, over what period of time ? did you publish the results if so Where?

The Statement of Reasons, with its four appendices appears to be the most elaborate and fanciful catch-all description of every possible nuance anyone could ever think up. Furthermore, all the detail is exactly (word for word) the same as used to describe the need for other TROs being proposed by the Authority. This does not give any credibility to this particular TRO. There is nothing in the Statement of Reasons which is particular to Leys Lane.

The proposal talks of user conflict, erosion and environmental pressures as reasons to close Leys Lane but these cannot and should not affect any right of use set in statute law and do not evidence this option. This is an issue of management and tackling irresponsible behaviour and current reasoning set out in the proposal is without an evidence base; alleged instances of ‘user conflict’ are at best hearsay and have been flagged up by only a small percentage of Park visitors – what are the exact figures and has a real survey of opinion (both visitors and residents) been undertaken?

I noticed in section 3 the term "offroad" was used in this quote "use of unsealed highways and offroad", could you please use the correct terminology, this isn't "offroad" as it is a legal UCR and is therefore not "offroad".

I would be interested to know numbers of vehicles both by day & night. I’m sure there are few during the day, although more at weekends, but hardly any driving the lane at night to ruin the experience of dark skies.

No sufficient exploration or acknowledgement of the needs of disabled motorists has been demonstrated.

No sufficient exploration or acknowledgement of the cultural heritage of recreational motorcycling on this route has been made.

PDNPA claims that they are unaware of the use of electric motorcycles on public motor roads isn't a sufficient reason to justify banning them. Please explain PDNPA's reasoning for banning electric motorcycles, given that they have significant scope to reduce air pollution attributable to traffic, and that this is a requirement of the National Air Quality strategy, which PDNPA owes duties to by virtue of section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act?

Please explain why PDNPA allows my civil liberties to be determined by a committee chaired by a person with a prejudicial interest? Please explain why PDNPA encourages an institutional culture of discriminating against disabled motorcyclists, wishing to motorcycle this public motor road, by tolerating prejudicial interests in committee members and failing to fully explore the needs of disabled motorists? Please explain how PDNPA intend to meet their statutory duty to conserve the cultural heritage of trail motorcycling on this public motor road, when the order has no clear mechanism to facilitate this? Please confirm that PDNPA had formal confirmation from the British Horse Society authorising Patricia Stubbs to respond on their behalf as a statutory consultee for the purposes of this process.

I object to this order on the grounds that PDNPA are acting beyond it's powers by reason that section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act requires that it be "expedient" to make the order. Given that PDNPA's performance to date in attempting to impose Traffic Regulation Orders has resulted in a defeat in the High Court and a retraction of an order, PDNPA clearly cannot "expediently" exercise this power given their current institutional failings which primarily result from tolerating prejudicial interests in the decision making process. Please explain PDNPA's reasons for exercising TRO powers given that it cannot do so expediently and that performance to date has wasted public funds and shattered public confidence in the authority?

The route is an Unclassified County Road. I realize that it is shown on the Definitive Map as a Byway Open to All Traffic, but the Definitive Map cannot legally prejudice higher rights.

Support

Representation

Comment

Importance of the Route and Area

Motorised recreational vehicles should be banned in all national parks. our countryside is too precious to be ruined by a minority of people whose activities do so much damage.

I run a small bed and breakfast and frequently have clients staying who simply want to relax in the local area for a few days. I have noticed in the last year that several of my clients have commented that Leys Lane is being destroyed by its use by motor vehicles. As Leys Lane is is one of the favourite short walks from Monsal Head, I feel that these clients should have some consideration of their views.

The tranquillity has been lost and the ancient walls have been broken down.

The lane passes through an area of special scientific interest.

The quiet enjoyment of an ancient lane is part of the pleasure of walking and living in the Peak District and off road drivers can destroy this.

People use the peak park to be in touch with the beautiful countryside that is available and don't want to be endangered, have their peace spoilt or walk or cycle through muddy trenches created by off-roaders.

I have walked Leys Lane and Chertpit Lane for more than twenty years. It forms part of a circular route I walk every month or so for pleasure. I feel the increasing use of these lanes by noisy trail bikes wrecks the tranquillity of the area. Its difficult to enjoy a walk if you have to look over your shoulder in case a motorbike bears down on you. I feel threatened by the presence of motorbikes on such a narrow road. The beauty of the stone walls is also damaged by off road cars.

The lane in question is of outstanding beauty and ecological importance, as are its surroundings, but is in danger of being ruined by offroaders.

As one gets older the places where one can walk with enjoyment on a reasonably safe surface become increasingly important. Ones physical reactions are not swift and vehicles in these narrow lanes are intimidating and frightening.

It is in an area of great natural beauty, and lying as it does within the Peak District National Park it should be there for the enjoyment of everyone who is out in the fresh air enjoying the countryside.

We need to retain more of our green lanes and byways in a peaceful and tranquil state, not allow motor vehicles to churn up the ground and present noise, smell and an element

National Park designation offers opportunities for understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the area for all users. National Park designation does not preclude use of such routes by recreational motor vehicles as a matter of principle. The natural beauty of this area and its amenity value is recognised.

There is no duty on NPA’s to promote quiet enjoyment. The NPA will however promote activities in keeping with the special qualities of the Peak District. The NPA will also have regard to whether there is a conflict between recreational use and the conservation of the area in order to meet its statutory purposes.

of danger to walking, riding or cycling on them.

Motor vehicles have many roads available to them - leave some areas of the countryside free of traffic. We need places for nature and people to enjoy quietly

Unless vehicles are banned I very much doubt she will be able to appreciate the experience the way I always was, due the various forms of nuisance caused by the vehicles

The lane is in a quiet and beautiful area of the Peak National Park. It is an area much loved and visited. It is appreciated for its peace, beauty and wildlife. It would therefore be a great loss to many - families with children, walkers, birdwatchers, ramblers, cyclists, and school and community groups - if this lane was taken over for use by mechanically propellled vehicles. With the fast-paced and stressful lives that many people now experience it is becoming even more important to protect these places, so that as many people as possible can enjoy access to this wonderful landscape, without fear of traffic, with its speed, noise, danger and disruption.

I am not a very fit walker but Leys lane is very accessible from the village and gives access to great views. Unfortunately since the increase in motorised traffic , I have not felt confident about walking there especially given the speed and unpredictable presences of vehicles. I also enjoyed sitting on the bench at the top and enjoying the peace and quiet, which has now been spoilt.

I am a regular runner and walker and have enjoyed running on the green lanes and railway line as part of my running route.

Leys Lane used to be a quiet place to enjoy meandering down with friends & family, a place for nature lovers to watch a wide variety of indigenous & migrant birds, lizards, butterflies & many species of insects. I have not seen partridge, green plover, linnets, curlew nor Lizards, sunbathing on the walls on Leys Lane since the Trail Bikes have started using the Lane as a way through.

It is a beautiful way to gain the higher ground without going up the road

The Peak National Park is supposed to be protected for the quiet enjoyment of its special characteristics and the area through which this road runs needs such preservation or improvement of the amenities it offers. The general public should be allowed to enjoy the natural beauty of the area without disturbance or fear of intimidation by off roaders.

This area is part of an an almost idyllic part of Derbyshire, with its tiny hamlets and villages joined by numerous paths and green lanes. The latter are especially important in and around the villages and hamlets.

One of the most important aspect of the area is the tranquillity it imparts , here one can get away from the bustle and noise of urban areas and enjoy the countryside to its fullest

extent. Occasionally agricultural machines may impose on this tranquillity but this is normally softened by distance and the softness of land on which they run.

Want this green lane to be free from the noise, damage and disruption caused by motorbikes so that I can ride it safely on my mountainbike

The views are quite spectacular down the Derwent Valley towards Crich and Riber Castle. Most often I have walked it early in the day or quite late in the evening when the light is at its best on the hills and valleys. It is usually a place for quiet contemplation and solitude with often no more than a few other users.

Leys Lane in spring is bounded with an abundance of wild flowers and ecologically sensitive.

The wild flowers are not flourishing as they did, I have not seen Meadow Sweet for some while now, nor the Melancholy Thistle.

Continued use by mechanically propelled vehicles of this route would have an adverse impact on the ecological, archaeological and landscape interests, the natural beauty, amenity, recreational and educational value of the area, and the special characteristics of the route.

Walk there because of the beauty of the landscape, and at certain times of year to pick sloes or blackberries.

For 20 years I have used Leys Lane for walking with different doggie companions (given without livestock on the lane I could let the dog off its lead) and latterly with my young children.

Leys Lane is such a wonderful asset to the village-it's residents and visitors (the Longstones have a number of holiday cottages and B&Bs) as it provides access to so many short and longer circular walking routes, whether its just an hours walk or access to surrounding countryside, the Monsal trail and Longstone Edge for a longer hike. The wonderful views along the lane and adjoining Chertpit Lane are worth the climb and are truely panoramic from Monsal Head, through Ashford, Over Haddon and right round to Chatsworth's Hunting Tower.

I also ride and have ridden up and down Leys Lane given its access to circular rides around my village and as a wonderful off road route.

Leys Lane is relatively short; indeed the proposal affects only some 1,000 yards from the Farm. On foot or bicycle it givens half an hour of quite enjoyment on the lane and longer access to circular walks and rides back to the village. I feel that Leys Lane is such a valuable asset to local people and visitors who come to enjoy the area. To the bikers their fun on the lane last barely a few minutes before they are back on roads again.

The Peak Park takes great pride in their conservation, which makes it a great tourist

attraction

As a leader of walks it would be irresponsible of me to take anyone near this lane, which helps give access to some of the best areas in the district

This is an area of beauty, not a vehicular playground to be churned up.

The peak parks attraction all users is its inherent natural beauty and its quality as an 'oasis' surrounded by urban sprawl. People visit it for the contrast it provides and its tranquility, as well as its use for leisure activities. It is surrounded by the most densely populated areas and therefore has to accommodate the greatest number of visitors of all types.

Consideration should be given to local farmers who need to use the lane for access and maintenance.

I particularly value the ability to access unspoiled countryside from the village and to walk on paths and tracks which are virtually unchanged from the nineteenth century. These paths and tracks are a precious survival.

For many years our family enjoyed an autumn walk from Little Longstone around to Great Longstone via Leys Lane to pick blackberries and sloes.

The Peak district is known for its charm and stunning countryside. It’s a haven for those seeking some peace and quiet with only the sound of the animals and birds and the other walkers biding you a polite hello as you pass along the way on those unbeatable country walks - and then sampling the marvellous local pubs along the way.

I have loved walking on Leys Lane for as long as I can remember, enjoying the tranquility, wildlife and stunning views from the top. In the past, we used to amble up the lane carrying picnics, pushing pushchairs and walking the dogs. It was a healthy outdoor activity that the whole family could enjoy. This is no longer possible.

I am a walker and use both Leys Lane and Chertpit Lane regularly for pleasure and exercise. I live locally and have lived in Great Longstone for 21 years and I am 75 years of age. By using this route as access to ‘Longstone Edge’ and other footpaths radiating from it, I am maintaining my fitness and therefore in less need of medical services. It is only in the last five years or so that the pleasure I have enjoyed in using this route as access to Longstone Edge and beyond has been disturbed by the increased use of vehicles, both 4x4 and motorcycles.

There are extensive views over classic white peak landscape. Verges are classified as a roadside nature reserve. There is a farm with attractive stone buildings at the south end.

We have small children, and the constant worry about encountering motor vehicles on such tracks restricts the extent to which we can allow them "off the leash" to investigate the environment, and hence curtails the development and educational benefits for them of

our visits to the Peak District.

Historically this lane was a very pretty and quiet green lane which was a pleasure to walk with lots of interesting features to study and absorb. It is no longer a relaxing experience due to the constant threat of mechanical traffic. The whole ambience of tranquillity has been destroyed.

The historic, scientific and archaeological characteristics of the lane must be preserved for future generations to enjoy and learn from. I have learnt lots of interesting facts regarding the history of the area, flora and fauna and this educational opportunity could be lost if it is continually put at risk by inappropriate use of the lane.

As a child I used to go there blackberrying with my great aunt. Later on, my brother and I, would go tadpoling in the mere pond. For many years I've been a keen walker and one of my regular walks is a circular route going up through Rowland, across the top of the moor and down Leys Lane

I have walked up & down it all my life and it is very sad to experience the current unpleasantness

My motivation for walking in the countryside is to enjoy the peace and tranquility the countryside can offer. I have three main issues with motorised vehicles using Leys Lane: The noise pollution: the ordinary roads in the Peak District are already busy, the sounds of engines in the less accessible parts means there are now very few places where you can escape from the noise. The degradation of the surface of the track: what was once a pleasant track is now rutted and almost unwalkable. The lack of safety: many offroaders are considerate, however some treat the track like a racetrack with no consideration for other users and even considerate 4w drivers cannot get out of the way on narrow parts of the track to allow other users to use it safely. Obviously all three of these issues seriously reduce the pleasure of walking on Leys Lane.

It is rich in wildlife so much to enjoy In winter Mistle Thrush sings , Redwing and Fieldfare feed in the hedges, Goldcrests seek shelter in the conifers. In spring there are Willow Warbler, Garden Warbler. Chiffchaff, Blackbird, and Redstart and always a Song Thrush to name but a few. In summer the are butterflies and moths to identifiy and blackberries to pick Motor Vehicles are an intrusion, you cannot loose yourself in birdsong and identification,if you are anxious that you could meet with a dangerous situation.

I am a resident of Great Longstone, brought up my family in the village and was a childminder for many years. During that time I frequently took groups of children on walks up Longstone Edge, for picnics and a play. We always used Leys Lane as being a safe and traffic free way of accessing the Edge.

Run a Bed and Breakfast in the Village and many of my visitors are walkers of various

ages. I now consider Leys Lane to be quite unsafe for walkers due to its use by motorised vehicles. I recommend that our visitors do not use that route, particularly if they are either elderly or have young children with them. I consider that meeting vehicles on the Lane makes it too dangerous. The Lane is not wide enough and unless you are very agile there are many parts where there is no refuge from the traffic. The use of Leys Lane by motor vehicles has made it quite unusable for people in the Village and visitors alike, a great loss to both groups.

My love of the Peak District landscapes has grown over the years. Their quiet beauty inspires the soul, and I want future generations to be able to enjoy them unspoiled. Leys Lane is the route which connects Great Longstone to the western end of Longstone Moor, and is well used by walkers. The views from the upper section looking east, south & west are amongst the best in the Peak District.

This Order will not deprive anyone at all of enjoying this place. The aim is to preserve and enhance and protect for the enjoyment of everyone. The highways are dominated by vehicle use and it is time to recognise and value more sustainable modes of travel.

Green lanes are a vital recreational resource for those who wish to experience peace and tranquillity, along with the intrinsic beauty of Leys Lane itself. A full-time, permanent TRO will enhance the amenity of the non-motorised user - including the amenity of users who at present use vehicles, but who will adapt to the pleasures of walking, or bicycle or horse riding when recreationla vehicles are prohibited.

My first memories are of walks with my parents during the 1960’s. At that time Leys Lane was very much a green lane used essentially by people for walking. However, the lane was used occasionally by horse riders and the farmer for accessing some of his land. I remember the lane, at that time, as a place to see wild flowers, water life, including on one occasion a great crested newt, in the ponds situated just of the lane. As I grew older I became more aware of the hedgerows, wild birds and wonderful views over the village of Great Longstone, Bakewell and further south to Riber Castle Matlock. I am now a watercolour artist and a lot of the inspiration and images for my paintings has been, I think, shaped by the views from Leys Lane I have experienced over many years. The Leys Lane of my past was a place of warm summer days, quiet walks uninterrupted by traffic, to stand and stare, to hear birdsong, to see butterflies, and count the wild flowers. This reality and perception of Leys Lane has, to my mind, only changed in the last 10 years. Impact on Leys Lane of increasing use by vehicular traffic In the past 10 years Leys Lane has changed from a pleasant green lane for walkers to a metalled thoroughfare for recreational use by motor cycles and other off road vehicles. The impact of this usage has been major on both Leys Lane and other users of it ie walkers.

I am a keen walker, dog walker and mountain biker and frequently use the area around the village of Great Longstone without having to use my car. I enjoy the view from leys lane and beyond. I use Leys Lane to access walks towards the Moor to enable me to do a circuit back to the village.

As we now have health problems to do with our joint's we both find it very difficult to negotiate rough terrain and the tracks in the Peak District should be an ideal surface for us. As this is now not the case on Lanes that have been damaged by off road vehicles we are reluctant to consider the Peak District as a walking venue especially as we live in Leeds and would ordinarily stay overnight or on a short break.

It is good to see the P.D.N.P.A. taking seriously their responsibility for the care and protection of a national asset, something that will be almost impossible to replace if we lose it. In the busy bustling world in which we find ourselves today, particularly in the towns and cities that surround the Peak District, tranquillity is a commodity which is increasingly hard to find. To have such an asset, a small oasis of calm, within reach of a large population is rare. People can hear birdsong, trees rustling, see wildlife that they would not experience in towns and cities and generally relax and enjoy a rural landscape with its sights, smells and sounds.

I love the scenery and the opportunity to see wildlife. As well as giving me much needed exercise, walking in the area contributes greatly to my general well-being and enjoyment of life.

It is a convenient route for local people wanting a short walk, dog walkers and runners/joggers. The route is very much an amenity for the people of Great Longstone as well as people visiting the Peak District.

The lane runs through a beautiful and historic landscape. The drystone walls are an intrinsic part of this and some have been destroyed already by off-road vehicles, while other sections are at serious risk - particularly at the narrowest part. One cannot truly enjoy the sense of history whilst worrying about the presence of vehicles, seeing evidence of their passage or hearing the intrusive noise of high revving engines. From an amenity point of view, I had restricted my use of the lane, particularly for running, when it was in an overgrown condition. DCC have done some necessary clearing and re-surfacing and the lane is now potentially much more useful to me for walking and running, both as a local round route and to access the moorland on Longstone Edge. However, the presence of vehicles is a significant detractor and I tend to limit my use to the early mornings.

It is an invaluable location for artists and affords children a safe protected environment whilst parents and grandparents unwind. Unfortunately the sense of anticipated danger

from these vehicles limits the enjoyment and relaxation of late and makes walking in the area a less relaxing experience than it used to be.

Live in the Peak District and frequently walk in the areas of Great Longstone and Longstone Edge. One of the most pleasant and useful routes is along Chertpit and Leys Lanes which link the two areas. They have good surfaces for walkers and pleasant rural surroundings. The quiet experience of walking along Leys Lane is shattered when motor vehicles approach as the banks are high and close together.

As the Lane is in a national park the area is particularly recognised as a place to enjoy peace and fresh air.

I live in Great Longstone and regularly walk with my 2 year old daughter and 3 month old son, often in a tandem buggy. The prospect of meeting and struggling to pass a 4X4 and the narrow sections of the lane, combined with my daughters dislike of loud noises, mean we are in effect excluded from using Leys Lane. The walled lanes around Great Longstone are great for toddlers to walk along as they are introduced to the countryside - especially useful if you're trying to supervise two children. Caution is obviously needed with regards to other users such as mountain bikers and horses, but the fast movement of motorbikes make them a significant danger and reduce enjoyment for many families out walking.

Route Condition

With the significant increase in recreational vehicles substantial parts of the ancient walls have been knocked down and the surface deteriorated making it muddy, rutted and rocky. Recent resurfacing has temporarily improved this, but new rutts are already appearing and the smoother surface is making for faster traffic.

I've personally seen a convoy gauging out the ground from below a wall. When I went back a month later the same wall was at an angle and stones were lost from it.

I have observed frequent damage to the lanes surface, as well as to the dry stone walls on the lane, that has been caused by vehicles.

Over the last two years I have been very disappointed to find the conditions underfoot in the above lane so bad that it has been practically impossible for someone of my age to walk there without risking injury.

In recent years I have found Leys Lane to be rutted and muddy due to its overuse by trail bikes and 4x4 vehicles. I have avoided using it because of this. I understand the lane has been resurfaced recently but is already showing signs of wear and tear from off roading.

The grass has gone from the central strip of the lane, the motor trail bikes have gouged

The monitoring of condition over the years shows that there has been a discernible deterioration of sections of the route, although repairs have now been undertaken. The legislation dealing with the clarification of status and vehicle use does not have regard to suitability for such use. Where use is considered inappropriate or excessive, powers to make TROs are available to Highway Authorities and also to NPAs for unsurfaced routes.

out the grass, & the Quad bikes have done further damage because their tyres are not far enough apart to straddle the central grass verge & unfortunately they scraped off grass with the body of their vehicles. 4x4s are too wide & have repeatedly hit the ancient walls in the narrow section, & are now driving on the wall footings further damaging the walls.

Help nature to come back to the Lane & start to regenerate it.

The use of the path by motorcycle riders is particularly obnoxious, as is the churning up of the soft soil.

In recent years I noticed a significant deterioration in the condition of the track along Leys Lane, as it had become very deeply rutted and quite uncomfortable to walk on. This has coincided with the regular use of the Lanes by motorcycles and off-road vehicles. I have felt a good deal of concern about this as Leys Lane is very narrow in parts, and because of the deep ruts there is only a narrow area alongside the wall to hold onto should one of these vehicles come past.

I have also seen groups of vehicles churning through rapidly deteriorating sections of the lane clearly unconcerned that their vehicles are causing huge damage to the Lane and making the way difficult and even dangerous for other users in their heavily rutted and muddy tracks.

The lane quietly became designated a BOAT and became known to an increasing number of trailer bikers and 4x4 enthuiasts. They now come in organised groups. At the start my friends and I found it increasingly difficult to ride on the lane as the unsightly ruts caused by bike and car tyres became increasingly dangerous to the horses, even at a walking pace. First my friend and then I had to stop riding on the lane given the risk of a fall or injury to the horse. Some sections were also virtually impassable on a horse given the path had fallen stones from the damaged drystone walls.

They churn up the ground, creating slippery puddles for us walkers (I have recently fallen as a result

Drivers of such vehicles cause irreversible damage to paths and tracks such as Leys Lane and also endanger walkers and their dogs.

It is also sad to see the damage to the dry stone walls and surface of this historic track that the vehicles have caused over recent years.

The damage caused to both the foundation of Leys Lane, in particular, needed to be seen as the underlying limestone had been exposed for the last few years prior to Derbyshire County Council, Highways Department, tipping ‘black ashfalt road tailings’ onto both lanes.

Over a relatively short period of time - since leisure motor vehicles have been given access - the fabric of the lane has shown considerable deterioration and there is evidence

of surface erosion due to vehicles travelling at speeds unsuitable for the nature of the lane. There are areas where the surface has been ripped up and stones loosened that have been well trodden in for many, many years.

Last year the County Council spent a lot of money levelling & resurfacing the lane. In under 12 months the surface has been swept down the hill and ruts are appearing again.

Since the resent works on Leys Lane in which road planings have been placed I feel that Leys Lane has become more dangerous for all users. The planings have become fused together forming a near tarmac surface with a layer of small lose stones over a solid smooth surface, this has had the effect of making the surface extremely difficult to grip on. With breaking distances being dramatically increasing for trail bikes travelling down Leys Lane, up to 20mph if the code of conduct is observed, that coupled with blind bends and an incline have made Leys Lane particularly dangerous.

After the action taken by Derbyshire County Council and after the public inquiry decision, the resurfacing of the lane and cutting back of hedgerows has completely destroyed the character and the purpose in law of Leys Lane. A carriageway, i.e. a right of way for vehicular traffic, but one which is used mainly for the purpose for which footpaths and bridleways are used, i.e. by walkers and horse riders.

It should be noted that the use of Leys Lane by motorised vehicles has damaged the surface and verges of the lane, necessitating changes to the surface and verges which have changed the nature of the lane. It is no longer a byway, but a narrow road which has to be maintained and resurfaced by the county council.

Lanes such as this have evolved over long periods of time and were established well before motorised vehicles and therefore were not built to sustaiin use by modern forms of motorised transport. They tend to be far too narrow to allow for safe use by pedestrians and horse or cycle riders which all travel slowly, as well as motorised forms of transport, which are far heavier and tend to travel far more quickly. There must be ample evidence that the use of such lanes by motorised forms of transport which are heavier and exert far greater forces on the surface of the track results in a far more rapid deterioration in the quallity of the surface.

Conflict & Impacts

Everyone leaves a footprint but theirs is by far the greatest.

This is not before time and should be part of a much wider crack-down on this activity. Off-roading is not only dangerous to pedestrians and other legitimate users of the footpaths and trackways of the Peak District but is unpleasant, by both its noise and pollution, to other people, both residents and visitors. It also has a detrimental effect on

Not all vehicle users are irresponsible, however, the type and level of use and nature of the route and the in parts limited opportunities to avoid vehicles can exacerbate conflict and safety concerns leading to

flora and fauna, both domestic and wild, along and adjacent to these routes. The damage caused by this activity to the footpaths and tracks is also unpleasant, unsafe and expensive for the taxpayer. I would like the PDNPA to urge the police to take a greater interest in the noise pollution and unsafe activities of these vehicles, with a view to prosecution of the owners and seizure of the vehicles.

The area has become very noisy and eroded in recent years. Large groups of motor and pedal cyclists making a racket day and night spoil the quiet enjoment. Motor vehicles have cused major erosion. Wildlife is also being impacted upon, not so many hares as there used to be in adjacent fields, this is likely due to increased noise. Motorised vehicle/motorcycle use of this andother lanes has become tooopular in recent years to the detriment of pedestrian use, quiet enjoyment, wildlife, ecosystems and caused massive erosion

Beyond reasonable doubt that the off-roading here has caused very serious damage and degradation which makes walking, riding and cycling difficult and even hazardous. Furthermore, the regular noise and disruption of tranquility makes any form of non-motorised travel an unpleasant and depressing experience.

I have lived in great Longstone for 25 years and during this time have walked Leys Lane frequently. In the first 15 years I was unaware of traffic on the lane, apart from the occasional farm vehicle. In the last 10 years this has changed significantly, especially since the re- categorisation of the lane as a BOAT. It is my impression that there are now more motorised vehicles than other users using the lane.

I have been unsettled on many occasions by trail bikers travelling very fast down the lane and had difficulty to find a safe refuge. I been unable to pass in the narrow section on meeting 4x4s causing me to have to scrabble up the embankment to get out of their way.

I have seen many trail bikers breaking the code of conduct and convoys of 4x4s.

A few weeks ago I was hit by stones flying up from a trail biker’s wheels, whilst sitting drawing on the bench at the top of Leys Lane. It has spoiled my enjoyment of what used to be a beautiful, scenic, tranquil green lane. I do not like going up it any more & feel unsafe.

It is a loss of amenity to residents in the village & to visitors to the area. The mix of walkers, cyclists, and children with vehicles is an accident waiting to happen. Horse riders no longer use the lane.

It is too narrow, with blind bends and a steep descent to allow use by motorised vehicles.

This is not a good road, in my view, for motor vehicles to use. It is too narrow, and vehicles represent a significant danger to walkers, horse-riders and cyclists.

There have been several occasions when I've been walking there and had to step into a

deterrence of use by non-vehicle users. Where issues of safety exist, these will normally be dealt with by the Highway Authority acting in co-operation with the police, with the National Park Authority providing any support we reasonably can. However fears for safety may be a contributory factor impacting on the amenity of users. Where the NPA are considering making a TRO on amenity grounds, safety reasons may be an additional consideration in support of this ground. Minimising impact is a key concern. Some impacts may only be temporary but when taken cumulatively are of more significance.

hedge to avoid being mowed down by off-roaders.

Since it was re-categorised as a BOAT ( Byway Open to All Traffic) the numbers of recreational motorised vehicles has increased to such an extent that it is no longer a safe place to walk, cycle or horse ride.

The top of the lane is too narrow for a pedestrian or cyclist to pass a 4 wheeled vehicle without having to climb the walls and there are few refuge places to get out of the way of trail bikers on the other sections.

Horse riders no longer use the lane.

The damage done to narrow green lanes and the danger to non motorised users such as pedestrians and horse riders far outweighs the restrictions imposed on the drivers of off road vehicles.

I have seen the amount of damage that weekend 'convoys' of off-road vehicles can do and the disruption they can cause as they move in slow convoy down the hills. The Leys Lane situation has many similarities and the potential for environmental damage to a sensitive area is possibly even greater.

Leys lane (known as Cherpit lane to some) is a classic example of how an ancient lane has come to be the play area for off roaders with no evaluation for how their activities might destroy the lane itself and effectively prevent others from using it. Arguably, from the off roaders point of view, the more the surface degrades and becomes more difficult to use, the more 'interesting' a drive along it becomes.

None of the local people who regularly use this path (road) use it in motorised vehicles

have noticed a deterioration in it, such that I am discouraged from visiting this part of the Peak District.

I had a woman friend who said she didn't want to walk this route as she felt the bikes she'd previously met on it scared her.

I have walked on this beautiful lane from before vehicles were allowed. It is scary enough when a cycle is heading towards you at speed but at least there is enough room for both. This is not the case with 4x4 vehicles. I am too old to be climbing walls to get out of the way, hence, given the choice, I would prefer not to have these types of encounters. I have not walked this route lately because of the risks to myself and feel that there are enough roads around for vehicles to use so why should we relinquish this green lane to be devastated by vehicles, making it in effect a no-go area for anyone else. We need to keep fighting to keep these tranquil places or they will all be lost forever.

Traffic on the lane is dangerous to other users. I and my family have been forced off the lane by vehicle users in the past, as there is no passing room at the lanes narrowist points. (We had to climb over the wall to get out of the way).

Increased use of the lane by off road vehicles has resulted in a lot of noise.

It is entirely forseeable that opening this lane to mechanically propelled vehicles will endanger lives and present the very real potential for a serious accident.

If you meet a convoy of 4x4s in the narrow section, when it is slippery due to mud or ice, you have to climb up on to the walls with your family & dogs to let them pass, & just hope they don't hit the bit of wall you are standing on.

I have seen Trail Motor bikes speeding past & not only spraying mud & stones as they rev up to catch their group up, but also causing horses to flee in fear, & pregnant ewes to scatter in alarm.

While I have no issue with off-roading in principle, I do not feel this is an appropriate place for motorised vehicles to be driven. This is because of the increased potential for accidents, due to the narrowness of the lane and variety of different users on it, and also because of the environmental damage in terms of wear and tear on the lane and noise pollution from the MPVs - the proximity to local villages, and the higher ground means that the noise, especially from scrambler bikes, can be intrusive for many local people.

Have personally experienced the difficulties in MPV and non-MPV users trying to get up/down at the same time.

Increasingly we have been anxious about safety here given the risk of vehicles, which makes it not pleasant or safe when walking with children.

This is a beaufuful path that has been wrecked by physical damage to the track and the risks caused by vehicles travelling too fast. Powered vehicles do not mix with walkers/children.

Appreciate that many of the 4x4 drivers are simply wanting to use the countryside for for a form of enjoyment I believe that their activities are not commensurate with and detract from the principle and the very nature of such areas.

The destruction of walls etc. by motorised vehicles is doing considerable harm which will no doubt require repair out of the public purse.

A few noisy and determined individuals have been making the area very unpleasant for the rest of us, the majority. They act as if the access to the lane is their right alone and ignore the fact that it is used by many others who value the quiet and leisurely pace that is possible on a green lane.

I have never been confronted by off road vehicles or Trailbikes on this route, but I have been on Chertpit Lane, this being because I approach from the Tumulus on Longstone Edge on my way down to Little Longstone and Ashford in the Water. I have been present on this part of the lane when gangs of Trail bikers have processioned down the lane and the racket from revving engines has been overwhelming and as for Motor Vehicles there

are no passing places at all. I do not like to envisage what would happen to horse riders or walkers on the Leys Lane part is it extremely narrow, no where to escape to bounded by walls and hedges all the way down to the farm. I believe the mix of horses and humans with vehicles on this lane is dangerous and should be prevented.

Since the opening of Cherpit Lane to recreational motor vehicles, it is no longer safe for pedestrians. The Lane is narrow and, by their nature, “off-roaders” drive and ride at speed. During the time that I continued to walk in Cherpit Lane I rarely saw a 4x4 vehicle, but I was regularly in peril from motorcyles.

I have lived in Longstone and walked Leys Lane for over 30 years During this time the lane walls ,in the narrow lane, have been destroyed -vehicles now travel where the walls used to be and the farmer has had to fence the area to retain his stock.

I walk dogs and if confronted by vehicles then there is nowhere to go -the sides are steep and it is extremely narrow I enjoy the peace & quiet that used to be found on Leys Lane -I now have to plan when to walk there to avoid vehicles, so it is either very early morning or not at all

The school no longer uses Leys Lane for nature walks as we cannot risk the safety of the children as there is no refuge should we encounter a vehicle.

The narrowness of the lane would seem to make damage to the walls by passing vehicles unavoidable.

Tracks which I would happily allow my children to wander along in a care free manner have become almost unwalkable to the point where I stopped using certain byways. Added to this the cost of repair , the noise and the pollution and often the need to squeeze alonside the vehicles and it reached a point where these paths are no longer enjoyable or safe for walkers, bikers and horesriders to use.

I do not feel the Lane is a safe place now to walk with my grandchildren.

Over the years that our family has been using Leys Lane we have shared the environment with a variety of other walkers, runners, horse riders and cyclists. With very few exceptions these encounters are friendly and co-operative. Over this same period there have been an increasing number of users of motorbikes and 4WD vehicles. Absolutely without exception all encounters with vehicles are intimidating and unpleasant. If there is one aspect of motorised vehicles in these environments that is of most concern to me it is that all other users of these facilities are able to co-exist with no adverse impact on one another but nobody else can share when vehicles are concerned.

Notwithstanding the inherently intimidating nature of motorised vehicles on what are essentially footpaths drivers of these vehicles are inevitably removed from other users and rarely show any real consideration for other users of the lane. I have also witnessed

verbally and physically threatening behaviour from drivers who I have seen get out of vehicles and confront walkers who challenge them with a shake of the head or a thumbs down signal when drivers fail to pull over or slow down. I have often observed grim and sour faced drivers clearly resentful that they are obstructed by walkers, bike riders or horse riders.

In summer, this can be particularly hazardous when motor vehicles, including motorbikes, come roaring down at great speed down this narrow lane

Vehicles have made this lane virtually unusable for anyone else, and destroy the natural beauty of the lane.

Own and run holiday accommodation in the Peak District. Visitors to our property have tried to use the Leys Lane track and been frightened and certainly inconvenienced by motorcyclists in particular. They also found the surface severely rutted and difficult to use. As a result of these reports, I have myself walked the lane at a weekend and was forced onto the edge of the track by a stream of motorcyclists travelling at a speed that gave me concern for my safety.

Drivers of 4X4 vehicles are generally more considerate but still create a considerable inconvenience since they occupy the full width of the track and leave the surface in a very poor state.

By banning vehcile access it will enable the Horses to be more sure footed and the track useable. As it is now, Horse riders are put off because of the damage to the ground and the overpowering influence of traffic.

Even though I can no longer ride on Leys Lane its attraction to trail bikers continues to affect my ability to ride round the village given the bikers, who come in groups of varying sizes- regularly 6-10 approach with such increasing noise that by the time they reach you the horse (and I) are in a state of panic. Horses, being 'flight' animals are likely to bolt when frightened and even though all the bikers I meet are happy to slow down and even turn their engines off to allow me to pass, frankly the damage is already done as they approach as what is otherwise a ploddy horse is side stepping down the road.

It is simply not safe given the noise of several bikes approaching and because there is no where on the narrow lane to go to get out of their way or safely allow a horse and bikers to pass.

One friend, riding her horse in the field next to the lane where she kept the horse, when the horse was paniked by trail bikes on the lane and bolted causing my friend to fall off and sustain injury. The incident was reported to the police at the time.

This is not a problem only at weekends. I was walking with my children and dog on a Wednesday morning in the school holidays when we heard the noise approaching

through our village and sure enough up Moor Road and onto the lane. Pressing ourselves against the wall, 7 bikes flew past.

This route has become limited in its use. Motor vehicles and motor bikes dominate and walkers, horse riders and cyclists have become excluded due to the dangers posed by motor vehicles. Leys Lane should be returned to the local community and restored as a route available only to walkers, riders and cyclists.

Use by motorised vehicles for thrill seeking activities is eroding ancient routes and has the potential to discourage visitor footprint.

The lane is too narrow fo the four wheel drive vehicles - barely enough room for the vehicle without a person on foot, pushing a pram, or holding onto children, pedal cycles and horse riders. It is the thought of being confronted by these vehicles in such a narrow space that has kept me away from Leys Lane

The lane is too narrow, with tight bends, no passing places, no speed limit and in my experience drivers think they have the right of way

They constitute a danger to pedestrians, horseriders and cyclists. They make noise which again, is inappropriate to the countryside. They are a disturbance to birds and other wildlife and they destroy the paths.

They are often driven in a dangerous and aggressive manner which makes it unsafe for other users ie walkers cyclists and horse riders.

The drivers are often rude to us walkers, insisting on their 'right of way'

Motorised vehicles in scenic areas like this, and ones of such ecological importance, have a disproportionate impact on the ecology, and the experience of other users of the park

This is a narrow lane with no space for pedestrians /riders to get out of the way of 4 x 4s and poor visibility to see trail bikers approaching at speed. The fear of injury is stopping people from using this route.

Drivers of such vehicles cause irreversible damage to paths and tracks such as Leys Lane and also endanger walkers and their dogs.

Whilst some of the riders respect walkers and bikers there are others who seem oblivious to the notion that users might be travelling in the direction towards them, just around one or two of the sharper corners. They feel as though they have right of way and that everyone else should step aside.

Whilst some off road motor cyclists behave in a civil and responsible way , others barely slow down when they see us giving us little time to call the dog back if he is ahead and risking injuring him and us . If they have to slow down , it is obvious we are curtailing their ' fun ' and they race on again once they have gone past.

They ride at great speed along a traditional green lane that was most certainly not

designed for mechanised vehicles

The top of the lane is simply too narrow for a pedestrian or cyclist to pass a four-wheeled vehicle without literally having to cling on to the walls, highly dangerous in itself and potentially fatal with small children or animals. The vehicles often travel at high speeds and throughout the lane the refuge places are small, few and far between. I have personally encountered motorcyclists on countless occasions and, even when rider has been courteous and travelling at a reasonable speed, I have had to scramble out of the way into bushes and nettles and onto slippery banks and walls. Unfortunately, some of the motorcyclists I have encountered have not been so responsible and I have found myself in very real danger of being run over. On at least 7 separate occasions, had I had my toddler or elderly grandfather with me, there would have been a very serious accident.

In addition to the destruction of drystone walls, a feature of The White Peak part of The Peak District National Park, grass verges have been destroyed as well, disturbing more of the benefits of walking in The Peak District.

The route is narrow, only 6 to 7 feet wide for most of its length. In places the stone walls do not border the surface of the track but the space available is limited by a line of mature trees and recognised roadside nature reserves. This makes it difficult for motorcycles to pass or cross non-motorised users and, effectively, it is impossible for 4x4s to do this. On 27 September 2013 the route was blocked by a tractor using a flail to cut hedges. Tranquility is a key quality of a national park. The sound of MPV engines disrupts this. The presence of MPVs and the anticipation that these might be on the route at the same time as other users detracts from the enjoyment of other users.

Motorcycles, though narrower, are unstable on rough ground and move noisily and erratically in a manner intimidating to foot traffic. It is not uncommon to have to take cover off the track to avoid being run over, and I have several times been showered with mud or stones thrown up by the wheels of passing vehicles.

They are intimidating and potentially dangerous. They don't deter me, but I'm sure they must deter less assertive walkers from going there again after an unpleasant experience. My wife used to ride & she wouldn't risk taking a horse there.

The increase in recreational vehicle activity has been to such an extent that the younger members of my family are not confident enough to use the lane. Which is wrong for this situation to exist within a National Park which should be promoting and encouraging the pursuit of outdoor activities

Four years ago I was aware of many more walkers than users of recreational motorised vehicles. During the last 18 months I have noticed much less usage of the lane by all

users but the most noticeable drop has been in the numbers of walkers and cyclist with no sight ever of a horse rider.

A carriageway, i.e. a right of way for vehicular traffic, but one which is used mainly for the purpose for which footpaths and bridleways are used, i.e. by walkers and horse riders. Any use by vehicular traffic discourages, and often prevents access by other users at that time. It is also impossible for non-vehicular users of Leys Lane to know when they will have to take action to avoid vehicles using the byway. This uncertainly deters non-vehicular users from using Leys Lane. The more Leys Lane is used by vehicles, the less it will be used by pedestrians and other non-vehicular users.

Since the introduction of motorised vehicles on Leys lane and Cherpit lane I do not feel safe accessing Leys Lane due to frightening and unpleasant experiences. I have been frightened when I walked my dog on the lead. Nine trail bikes passed me at speed just passed the point on the bend on Leys lane where I was out of their sight on their approach. The bikes were noisy and this made my dog agitated and difficult to control to be still. I had to move quickly into the shelter of the hedgerow but this was insufficient due to the room available. One of the trail bikers had to stop to warn the others behind him to slow down. I no longer feel safe to walk the dog on leys lane.

I exercise on my mountain bike and I am slow and out of breath on hills due to my limited fitness level. I access leys lane to do an off road circuit using bridleways around back to the village. One occasion I was cycling ascending up Cherpit lane where there are high walls either side. I was passed by five trail bikes who left acrid exhaust smoke in their wake that lingered in the dip between the high walls. This was most unpleasant and toxic to breath in especially when I was out of breath. The countryside should be to access fresh air without breathing in engine fumes.

I only feel safe walking on Leys Lane with my husband.

The resurfaced lane is no longer safe and suitable to use for wheelchair users or tricycle due to the ruts and the risk of passing 4x4vehicles especially on its most narrow part. This excludes disabled uses from accessing this route to enable their freedom to enjoy the view from the bench at the top of the lane. There is a care home situated in the village and the residents have less choice on accessible area to enjoy.

Leys Lane is adjacent to fragile landscapes with flora and fauna that have not evolved to deal with noise and pollution from mechanised vehicles. They rely on clean earth, air and water and without these we will lose them

However, of late we have not felt comfortable about walking Leys Lane because of the likelihood of meeting motorised vehicles. This is a particularly intimidating prospect if the vehicle is a large off roader, met in narrow parts of the lane where it impossible for it to

pass pedestrians safely. In the narrow parts the bank sides are very steep and offer no refuge for walkers.

I sympathise with those users of the campsite at Dale Farm who have come in all innocence expecting a peaceful stay.

I have found myself in very real danger whilst on Leys lane: a couple of years ago, whilst walking up Leys Lane with my infant son, I heard trial motorbikes approaching in the opposite direction. At the point in the Lane in which we found ourselves (towards the bottom) the lane is narrow, with steep sides and little by way of refuge at the verge sides. I picked up my son and pressed myself as closely as possible to the side of the lane. The motorbikes then appeared, coming round the bend very quickly indeed - recklessly so, given that the riders could have no way of knowing what they would find around the corner. The first bike passed very closely, followed by several others, although I had no way of knowing how many there were, and hence when it would be safe to continue our walk. The whole experience left me shaken and my son upset. I have not since then taken him on Leys Lane, on the basis that I do not consider it safe to do so.

I have also been forced to climb up - with my wife and two dogs - on top of the stone wall (or what is left of it) to get past two 4 x 4's that were completely blocking the Lane in its narrowest section because one had broken down.

I have seen horses in the fields along the Lane being frightened by the deafening noise of the bikes as they accelerate up the hill.

I have been passed on Leys Lane by numerous groups of motorcycle riders. These riders have been considerate and I have not felt they impaired my safety. The noise from motorcycles on Leys Lane is unsettling and detracts greatly from the pleasure of the walk, when I encounter them. I am also apprehensive that the riders will not be cautious and considerate.

I no longer walk along the lane myself, as part of my favourite circular walk, nor do I take dogs or my nephews who live in the village as I am too fearful and have had unpleasant abuse from trail riders who quite frankly scared me. On one occasion, a trail rider assaulted my husband, and questioned why he and myself with two dogs should be having a walk along Leys Lane. The rider was traced by the police but he gave a differing account of the incident.

Had always wanted harmony and felt that commonsense, plus consideration for others, would prevail. I don't think any of us imagioned how bad the situation would become nor what an impact the BOAT designation had on the lane. Physically it was changed forever from a tranquil grass track into a scramble bike route and walls pulled down to allow vehicle access in the narrow section. It's no longer a peaceful place to enjoy the

countryside; I'm frightened not just of being hit by a vehicle but of being vunerable to whatever they say or do. The police have long advised us to have personal video cameras and CCTV.

The long term impact of off roading activity is so damaging especially to small rural communities such as Great Longstone.

Many yards of Derbyshire limestone walling have been collapsed to its foundations. The land-owner has given up trying to repair the damage because of the cost in time and money and because it is knocked down faster than it can be repaired. To add to the problem a replacement fence has had to be erected several yards inside the boundary to avoid the rubble and so valuable acreage is lost.

Alternatives

To be denied the use of this road is hardly an imposition: it is not a long stretch of route and the alternative to using it is no longer in time - indeed, is probably quicker, given the fact that you cannot drive fast along Chertpit Lane and that the alternative is a B-road. I would like to see motor vehicles prevented from using this road unless their drivers need access, from the Great Longstone end, to the farm.

There is no reason for any motorised vehicles to use this lane, because the whole area is well serviced by normal metalled roads.

The fact that voluntary codes of conduct have been unsuccessful proves that the only way ahead now is a full and permanent ban.

If people want to indulge in anti-social, damaging and dangerous behaviour then they should be required to pursue these away from the beautiful and unspoilt Park environment.

Complex user restrictions are likely to lead to confusion and be misunderstood. A clear ban on MPV transport is much more likely to succeed and be free of misinterpretation.

I don’t believe that the restrictive measures (week-end usage, speed limits etc) will contain the damage. It will be impossible to police the inevitable abusive behaviour which could ensue. Prohibition and restriction could even result in provocation to ignore and abuse the regulations imposed.

This precious green lane should be preserved for those who travel on horseback, on a bicycle, their own two feet, or, for disabled people, an electric mobility scooter. Those who at present use 4x4s or motorbikes will have to get used to seeing their rights to motor suspended, and will, along with other recreatiional users of the track, be obliged to leave their vehicles where the tarmac stops, and proceed, under their own steam, to enjoy the beauty, peace and tranquillity that the track embodies. Only those with a genuine need

Partial TROs are considered in the report. Disabled use is allowable under TRO exemptions. A charge cannot be imposed for a permit as legislation does not permit a toll to be charged for use on a highway. Any sites proposed for motor vehicle use would require planning permission.

for access (eg occupiers, the emergency services) should be allowed to take motor vehicles along the track.

It is also unsuitable for two way use by vehicles as it is only a single track width with no passing places.

Would it not be possible to find a place, well away from villages, where a special course could be created for both 4 x 4's and trail bikes. I have seen these elsewhere and it seems to me they would provide a much more challenging ride that the local Green Lanes could ever offer and would not threaten the safety of others. It would also restrict the damage to one particular area.

Those in support of recreational motorised use of green lanes should consider having dedicated and challenging sites of their own in locations around the country

There are alternative routes on the public highway network to reach either end of Leys Lane and Chertpit Lane to view the Derbyshire countryside, should anyone wish to do so.

Others

The 4x4 lobby are few but powerful, and are exploiting completely out dated laws that obviously need updating.

The Peak District National Park Authority has a responsibility to conserve, protect and enhance the countryside within its boundaries, and a duty of care for the best interests of local residents within the PDNP and of discerning visitors to the PDNP. The proposed Leys Lane TRO is entirely consistent with the fulfillment of these responsibilities, and should be confirmed as soon as possible.

I would suggest that a physical barrier of some sort might be necessary at the northern end of Leys Lane to ensure compliance with the TRO, and perhaps at the southern end also. Furthermore, signs indicating "No through road for motor vehicles" will need to be posted where Leys Lane and Chirtpit Lane leave the county highways, to ensure a clear understanding of the altered status of the through route.

As the owners and managers of a local tourism business, we are concerned that if the issue of off-road motor traffic in the National Park is not tackled head-on, the image and status of the Peak District as a premier tourist destination will suffer. We want potential visitors to be absolutely confident that their perception of the National Park as a place for quiet enjoyment of this dramatic and unique landscape is reflected in their experience.

The off roaders are a formidable and well organised lobby, leaving semi-permanent posters around urging support for their views and able to concentrate their resources on single campaigns. The PDPNA should resist the firepower of this organised lobby and consider the wider ethical and environmental issues.

Enforcement of a TRO has resource implications. The NPA has proposed this action at this time after careful consideration of the evidence available and alternative options. This has included preparing route information in consultation with the Peak District Local Access Forum - an advisory body to the NPA and its constituent Highway Authorities. It is for Derbyshire County Council as the Highway Authority to decide how to discharge its duties to repair. The NPA is not making the TRO to obviate the duty by the Highway Authority to maintain that route. Determination of status of a route is based on fact and not suitability.

The offroaders are a highly organised group who, in a rather sinister way, appear to succeed in portraying themselves as victims, despite being the entire cause of difficulty they have created.

Ask the authority to consider the detrimental impact this issue, left undealt with, will have on the repute of the Peak District National Park; the loss of confidence among concerned local businessowners, other opinion-formers (media, investors, landowners, property developers) and the general public

Please use Horse Hops if necessary to keep the motorised vehicles out.They could be put at the start of the narrow walled section just below the picnic site, as the farmers tractors cannot access this area anyway.

Sympathetic to local residents and walkers who deserve a peaceful place for recreation without motor traffic.

Believe that our natural spaces are a valuable asset that should be shared and enjoyed by people with a broad range of interests provided that those recreational activities can be enjoyed and managed in a sustainable way. It is my view that recreational motor vehicles cannot be sustainably managed on un-surfaced lanes in the Peak Park.

They have scant regard to the beauty of the area in a total disregard for the population at large

They have scant regard to the beauty of the area in a total disregard for the population at large

in this landscape, recreational motorised vehicle usage of unmade tracks is simply not viable, desirable or acceptable. Historic use by horse and cart is in no way comparable and should provide no justification for the establishment of a right of way for modern off road vehicles.

The use of such leisure vehicles in this area is also counter to the whole raison d'etre of a National Park i.e.the conservation and preservation of an area of outstanding natural beauty.

The lanes of our countryside were never meant to be used as racetracks by selfish 4 X 4 driver or off road motorcyclists. They should be used as they were intended to be used as walkways for pedestrians.

The NP's are there for recreation that is based upon the NPs' valued characterisitics, with mutual benefit. Recreation that destroys or damages the Park's qualities should be prevented. Classic examples from the past are the PDNPA's success on appeal to prevent motorised gliders and LDNPA's successful battle to limit speeds on Lake Windermere. This is exactly the same.

The Peak District National Park Authority was put in place to help preserve this stunningly

beautiful area of the country. In your plan you state: ' the national park can have a strong impact on the lives of many people and possibly change their behaviour towards more sustainable and healthy living.' The use of off road vehicles is obviously in direct contradiction to this stated aim.

If this route remains a BOAT it will not be used by walkers and riders as it would be too dangerous, and the sense that the lane is a historic route will be lost.

It might be as well to check that the path has rightly been designated as a BOAT in the first instance as many if not most in Hampshire have been wrongly upgraded from RUPP's in the 1980's, since there was no evidence of 20 years use before 1930 which was advised by the DOE, to be required for the upgrade.

Serious thought must be given to some form of barrier - a gate or a horse hop at the top end of the narrowest section perhaps - with suitable notices at each end where the route leaves the tarmacked highway

As hosts are often asked to suggest walks from our door step - a few of these involve Leys Lane - however we have to point out the danger of motor driven vehicles on this stretch of the walk; guests are horrified on hearing these words of caution. The main question that follows is - ‘How is this allowed to happen in a National Park

National Parks were established by the will of Parliament for the purpose of retaining major areas of countryside, unspoiled as far as possible by encroachment from uncontrolled effects. Specifically, phrases such as "quiet enjoyment", "natural environment" etc. abound in the documentation. Recreational motor sport is the antithesis of these concepts and therefore goes against the principles on which the Parks were founded. Included in the documentation is an extract from Govt. guidance to the effect that "activities which may be acceptable in other areas will not be acceptable in a National Park". Activities which destroy the quiet enjoyment of the natural environment must be deemed unacceptable in these terms. The right to pass along properly planned and maintained motorable roads is of course necessary, both for the local economy and society and to give access to those who will visit the Park for "quieter" purposes. It is only by a loophole in ancient law that these rights have been distorted to include byways which were clearly not planned as motorable and whose character argues against maintenance to that standard.

If a "use" is, as Govt guidance says (above), not acceptable then those attempting this use have no acceptable interest and the Park should make it clear that they are not "users" within their duty of balanced concern. If the law from an age well before the need for National Parks was apparent is in conflict with Govt guidance for Parks it must be the duty of the Park to press for a change so that it can carry out its duty under that guidance.

In addition, the National Park Authority in its Landscape Strategy and European Landscape Convention Action Plan published in 2009, already has an approved policy in place that will not be reviewed before 2019, which is to:- Manage the Network of Tracks and Footpaths to Maximise Opportunities to Enjoy the Landscape - The network of tracks and footpaths should be managed to maximise opportunities for healthy recreation and to enjoy the landscape. This can be achieved easily by landscape management measures such as surfacing, and by controlling inappropriate use to retain the character, cultural heritage and biodiversity interests. It is questionable that off-roaders and green lane users actually enjoy the landscape offered within the Peak District when having to concentrate hard on their driving or riding skills, and to negotiate rough and loose surfaces found on unsealed tracks.