TRF Forums

monsal head tro?
Page 1 of 2

Author:  liam21 [ Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:11 pm ]
Post subject:  monsal head tro?

does any one know if monsal head has a tro on it at the moment? thankx

Author:  AlanH [ Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: monsal head tro?

Depends where you mean. Monsal Head is too vague.
If you mean Putwell Hill and Brushfield then there is NO TRO.

Author:  liam21 [ Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: monsal head tro?

ye thats the bit i mean thanks mate

Author:  dangermouse [ Fri Sep 07, 2012 11:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: monsal head tro?

There's no TRO at the moment but i have heard that one is planned, along with chirpit lane. Well a 'consultation' but we all know what that means I think.

Author:  Gooders [ Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: monsal head tro?

As of last weekend Brushfield (Monsal head) has been downgraded to a bridal way and a public foodpath on part of the route. Another great lane sadly lost in the Peak District. :evil: :roll:

Author:  Red [ Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: monsal head tro?

Please check with your Group Rep or Group ROW Officer if unclear

Author:  Hugh Cleary [ Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: monsal head tro?

Greetings Liam,

Cherpit Lane is a road signed legal route, BOAT Little Longstone 14, but it is effectively a cul de sac ending at the picnic site, the continuation section named Leys Lane is subject to a Permanent TRO, imposed by the PDNPA.

The route referred to as Putwell Hill and Brushfield is subject to a PI which has twice classified the route as having non recreational motorised access but the second decision is still under the objection period, the PTRO not yet having been applied for by the Highway Authority. I have no doubt that it will be classified as per the Inspectors report in the very near future.

You might wish to check this out further directly with the TRF's ROR Director,



Author:  Gooders [ Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: monsal head tro?

Thanks Hugh, Putwell hill and Brushfield now have Bridalway and in part a public footpath sign errected. I have been informed by my local group as some of our chaps were going to use the route last weekend.
Hope this helps folks

Author:  Hugh Cleary [ Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: monsal head tro?


Thank you for that very important update.

I will check the situation out with DCC tomorrow, all being well. As far as I understood a complaint against the PI is still running but I will double check.

As official road signs are up and displayed then I would advise that you do not ride that lane.



Author:  Hugh Cleary [ Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: monsal head tro?

Greetings folks,

I have not been able to contact the DCC but to no real difference as I just wanted confirmation on a couple of points. As the weekend quickly approaches perhaps it is best that I respond anyway, no doubt if I am wrong then I shall be told so.

The first point for me to make is that the Order is not a Traffic Regulation Order, TRO, but it is a Definitive Map Modification Order, in other words it was brought about by a claimant wishing to claim the route as having motor vehicle rights. The two systems operate in a similar way to each other but they are different. So, we need to register in our minds that we are dealing with a DMMO claim.

As I understand the process the Order had already been "issued" for Bridleway/Footpath by DCC (the Highway Authority) but it could not be confirmed due to objections. It was then subject to a Public Inquiry at which it was modified to a "Bridleway and footpath" as an "Interim Decision" by the Inspector. Again this wasn't Confirmed by the Secretary of State due to objections so another PI was held to hear those objections.

Despite the arguments at the second PI to which I, plus other TRF Members, PDVUG and TRF, gave evidence the Inspector decided to confirm the DMMO without any major changes other than to remove the word 'footpath'. As there were no significant changes, it didn't need to be further advertised nor consulted about.

This means so far as I understand it that the DMMO Order has been 'Confirmed on behalf of the Sectretary of State' as a Bridleway and there is no further process to complete. As soon as signs are erected, users are deemed to know about the revised status, and must not ride/drive the lane.

There is a 6 week window for legal challenge via the High Court, after the Inspector's final decision was published. If there is no such legal appeal in place then as I see it we have no justification for continuing to ride/drive the route. As far as I know there hasn't been made any challenge, as it could be potentially very costly if the challenger was to loose the challenge.

If anybody should like to read the final documentation then please follow the link; ... 6_m_od.pdf

So, after all of that I must advise that you do not ride/drive the route.

I am additionally sure that recording equipment will be watching and folk will reported to the Police in due course.

Another loss to democracy by those who wish to discriminate against us, still we again tried to seek a compromise solution to accommodate all.



Oops, sorry, forgot to add the small print;
This message is meant only as Peer to Peer advice, it is not Counsel's opinion, it does not necessarily represent the views of the TRF of which I am not an Officer, it should not be copied; published nor otherwise used without consent from the writer. In other words it is unofficial 'mates speak'.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group