A Map of Lever Park and Rivington

When is 14 not 14

When go-ape change their maximum persons per session to 18.

The new car park (not yet developed) for 45 cars, was calculated on the maximum person per session at peak times being 14.

Seeing that they have altered their maximum per session to 18 at selected peak times, does that mean they will be recalculating the car park size to serve the new maximum persons per session.

By our calculations the new car park will have to accommodate 57 cars.

Car parks must be developed to suite maximum capacity per session at peak times.

54 days and still waiting

After 54 days, Go-Ape still haven’t answered the question:

Where in Rivington is the On-Site parking for;

  • 95 cars
  • 40 light goods vehicles
  • 100 motor cycles
  • 4 disabled spaces
  • 4 buses

Don’t forget, this is ON-SITE parking, plus the fact they quote 95 cars indicates they have developed a new car park for 45 vehicles.

How interesting is this figure for ON-SITE parking ,(the bottom barn car park is OFF-SITE) so they can’t refer to this.

Why did the planning department not pick up on this, and why where go-ape allowed to submit parking figures for planning application 10/00426/FUL, that indicated that the new car park for 45 cars had been developed.

Mathematics:  08/00553/FUL showed 50 on site car spaces

                              10/00426/FUL showed 95 on site car spaces

What’s the next move?

submit a retrospective application that will only provide total spaces for what they have now 14 approx (yes 14 approx)

not the;

  • 95 cars
  • 40 light goods vehicles
  • 100 motor cycles
  • 4 disabled spaces
  • 4 buses

submitted with planning application 10/00426/FUL

Will they or won’t they

To-night the planning committee sit to decide whether to accept the retrospective application for the landing zones.

Will they ignore the 1902 Act and allow the provisions within to be breached ?

Will they ignore the conditions set by their own planning authority, in this case “Trading will not be allowed until the car park is developed according to the approved plans”?

If they ignore the conditions set by their own officers, then why set the conditions in the first place?

And lets not forget…… Go-Ape agreed to the conditions set…

report here in 24 hours, but don’t hold your breath, after what has gone on since 2008 nothing will surprise me!!!

Go-Ape submit new application

It appears that Go-Ape have submitted a retrospective application for the two landing zones that make a mockery of the status of an Historic Park.

The application is in breach of the provisions of the Liverpool Corporation Act 1902, and Council policies HT13, EP2, LT7,  SPG (trees and development) and BS5837.

Application No 11/00466/FUL

objections To.  Caron Taylor, Planning Officer, Civic Offices, Union St, Chorley, Lanc’s, PR7 1AL

Deadline for objections  8th July

Chorley recognise who was gifted Lever Park


Chorley Profile……   State of the Borough Report…..  November 2010.

Historic Parks and Gardens

2.8 There are a number of historic parks and gardens in the Borough, including four on English

Heritage’s Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest. These are shown below:

Lever Park: The roughly 160 hectare site is situated between the villages of Rivington and

Horwich, on land which slopes westwards down to Lower Rivington Reservoir. Gifted to the

people of Bolton by Lord Leverhulme, Lever Park has been a country park since 1904.







Quote in letter from “Secretary of States office”

“It is clearly unsatisfactory for development to be
carried out without the necessary planning permission or in breach of a
condition attached to a planning permission, and this is something the
Government takes very seriously. There are circumstances where it is
appropriate to invite a retrospective application, for example for rectifying
genuine mistakes (perhaps where permitted development rights have inadvertently
been exceeded)”.


Was the development of landing zones without planning permission a genuine mistake?

Was the failure to develop a car park as per approved plans a genuine mistake?

Was the failure to comply with condition 6, a genuine mistake?

Was the failure to comply with condition 1, a genuine mistake?




Fresh Problems

It appears that Go-Ape haven’t complied with all pre-commencement conditions attached to the planning permission.

It is simple: ALL conditions must be complied with.

Non compliance with conditions 1 & 6 begs the question : Why was this allowed to happen?

I’m sure that many of our supporters will be asking the same question.