Rushup: What DCC said vs What DCC did

It is our belief that Derbyshire County Council have significantly deviated from their originally stated aims and assurances. And failed to communicate or consult on this change with us, and, as we understand it, other significant stakeholders. The most important differences are highlighted in their original communication below.

“We have concluded that minimal intervention is the way forward so consequently we do not plan major construction work on the route.
We are planning some test sections in March which will involve removing and stock piling loose stone and where there are significant ‘holes’ to fill these in with material gathered on site. I’ll let you know when that is completed and you can have a look. Our aim is to preserve the natural, albeit eroded, surface and avoid any form of infill and construction. We were all very impressed with the way the surface had consolidated. If the test sections work we will then proceed to complete the repairs this summer.”
Email from Peter White to PDMTB, January 29th 2019, (emphasis added).

Taken at face value, and assuming no intention to disingenuously withhold known facts, these statements conclude: No imported material and no infill.
However, this is at odds with the work on the ground and their latest public statement, that was published thereafter. This latest statement now subtly alludes to importing material and infill:

“But we’ll use pieces of gritstone slab to help even out the surface where infilling with smaller material would be impractical.”
“We’ll no longer be building the cross-drains previously proposed or using large volumes of imported stone”
Extract from the statement on DCC’s website, published Friday afternoon (12/4/2019), (emphasis added).

We don’t know what a “large volume” constitutes in DCC’s measurements. But if the current trial section (10 metres or more in length by approx. 2m wide) were applied to all non-bedrock sections, this would eventually become a considerable amount of imported material. The “pieces of gritstone sIab” are also imported material. We are concerned these methods are a substitute to using “material gather on site” as was originally stated.

In addition to the apparent change in method and source of the stone, there is now a commitment to infill around anything deemed as “likely to be a trip hazard”. It is very worrying to us that a remote and wild area of the Peak District seems to be being risk assessed as if it were a city centre pavement.

“Any loose stone is being removed and set aside for later use. This stone will be used to infill low sections, where there is likely to be a trip hazard and this material will be sat on a concrete mix to ensure that it doesn’t move.”
Extract from the statement on DCC’s website, published Friday afternoon (12/4/2019), (emphasis added).

In conclusion, DCC have past form when it comes to agreeing one thing and then doing another. Stanage Causeway being a prime example. We had, perhaps naively, hoped for better this time, but it looks like our trust (and that of others) was misplaced, and we may be disappointed.

16 April 2019

Recent Posts

Categories