UU and Friends of Lever Park Meeting, Thursday 12th February, 2009.
Feb 14th, 2009 by David
Here is a summary [by Bob Townsend] of the recent meeting between UU’s Martin Padley, Head of Environment and Communities, Neville Kidd, UU, Central Area Catchment Manager, FLP Chairman Bob Dootson, and FLP members Tony Johnson and Bob Townsend. The meeting was convened at the request of Martin Padley and held at the Water Treatment Works, Rivington. Main items of discussion ranged from those listed below amidst an initial terse and tense atmosphere;
Car parking. Proposed car parking charges at Rivington and Anglezarke of 50 pence for 2 hours, and £1 for all day. An annual charge of £60 will be made for anyone wishing to park in any of the UU estate car parks. FLP queried if concessions could be made for retired people who may visit the areas of Rivington/Anglezarke on a frequent basis where even the annual charge was thought to be a financial burden. FLP suggested that Local Authorities could be asked to contribute towards fees as currently employed for bus travel and leisure centre usage. UU are to approach local authorities on this matter. UU are charged by their strategies to encourage visitors, a point very forcibly put by Martin Padley, and hence the plan to construct a car park at Fatty’s Field and impose a one way system. UU believe that Rivington can absorb more visitors. FLP made it clear to UU that Rivington cannot sustain further pressure from visitors travelling into the area and UU’s strategy can only make the situation worse. UU also take the view that roadside parking on the Rivington and Anglezarke Embankments and grass verges elsewhere is a matter for the Police and LCC Highways to control, despite having granted fishing rights to anglers who demand more parking facility. The car park at Horrobin Lane servicing the primary school, amongst others, is overwhelmed most of the week and yet again is seen as a Police and LCC Highway problem to be resolved. Plans for the Black A Moors Head Hotel at the Rivington Bowling Green will exacerbate this issue still further.
Land Management. FLP requested that maintenance of footpaths, land drainage and surface water flooding in Lever Park Ave warrant further attention. Despite best endeavours by UU there are many areas that are seriously affected. FLP invited the UU representatives to physically inspect these areas, but was not accepted today, maybe becoming an item for future meetings? Current land management needs to be improved in particular where drainage is concerned. UU were adamant that they were exercising good practice and were unwilling to improve their service. Maintenance of the Monkey Run was in poor state of repair and could result in injury to users.
Litter. FLP queried if current litter-picking activities were acceptable with UU confirming that they thought Rivington/Anglezarke had improved with many visitors taking their litter with them on departing. FLP did not agree and again posed the option of using volunteers to litter-pick further from the car parking zones enabling visitors to understand that Lever Park must be kept tidy. Good PR! UU seemed to think that litter-picking was being addressed satisfactorily and were not willing to support further initiatives.
Traffic Management. It was disclosed that UU will undertake a traffic management survey, in particular in the area of the proposed new car park at Fatty’s Field. FLP again made UU aware of the dangers created by barrier closure of the Knowle House car park, with many working families unable to use the car park were choosing to park on the car park sliproad. Visibility of those leaving the car park is severely impaired and could result in accidents as the access/egress point is in a derestricted speed zone. FLP suggested that the speed restriction should be imposed upon traffic before meeting Rivington Park Independent School & Nursery, Knowle House car park and Rivington & Blackrod school entrances. FLP made it clear that traffic management surveys should be imposed throughout Lever Park as a consequence of increased visitor numbers. UU did not agree and elected to make notes but offer nothing extra to improve safety. One has to question the UU Corporate stance on Social Responsibility?
Go Ape. The much debated subject of Go Ape development concluded that further trees may have to be felled to complete the course, but under planning consent, this did not exclude further UU tree felling in the woodland of Lower Rivington Reservoir to enable plantlife to be re-established. It was apparent that UU are utilising their position of financial power and influence by arrogantly being expected to be taken to a legal battle.
West Pennine Moors. During discussion of land management FLP reminded UU of the excellent plans created by the West Pennine Moors committees in 1980 that had made it clear that Rivington then was under pressure, these now seem to have passed by as a result of financial constraints. The Conservation Committee, the only independent group of the West Pennine Moors, has subsequently been replaced by a Biodiversity Group of Officers.
Commitment. UU made it clear that many issues were outside their remit and reminded all that the Local Authority, Lancashire County and Parish Councils had a part to play. FLP genuinely believe that greater openness and freedom of information from the resultant committees would assist and improve public awareness. UU must appreciate that their actions have a direct impact on Rivington and cannot rely upon others to resolve problems that they have largely created.
Despite many points being strongly debated it was concluded that dialogue had been commenced and benefits would ensue if some acceptance of responsibility/action is taken by UU . A further meeting is forecast for the coming month.
It’s good to see a strong dialogue starting with United Utilities – I think its the best way forward.
I was always under the impression that that united Utilities were managing Lever Park in the interests of conservation.It is becoming obvious that this is not the case.They would have the public believe the Lever Park/Rivington estate runs at a loss, when indeed the opposite is true.Both the top and bottom barns alone generate considerable income for U.U. as the rent they pay is enormous.Then there are all the cottages .For many years people have enjoyed Rivington as an escape from commercialisation.If U.U, have their way it will just be another theme park.The ramblers,horse riders e.t.c. will be driven away.Not what Lord Leverhulme had in mind when he left it to the local people for”Free and uninterrupted enjoyment”
UU are a law unto themselves. It is very frustrating to know that the Friends of Lever Park are in the right but because UU have the financial clout they can ride roughshod over anyone standing in their way in their endeavour to commercialise Lever Park. It is all very well to have dialogue but it is patently obvious from the meeting that UU are not going to compromise of any of their plans. The charm of Lever Park is that it is unspoilt, but not for much longer if UU have their way. What happened to the maxim “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”?
UU are a law unto themselves. It is very frustrating to know that the Friends of Lever Park are in the right but because UU have the financial clout they can ride roughshod over anyone standing in their way in their endeavour to commercialise Lever Park. It is all very well to have dialogue but it is patently obvious from the meeting that UU are not going to compromise on any of their plans. The charm of Lever Park is that it is unspoilt, but not for much longer if UU have their way. What happened to the maxim “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”?
My letter in the BN today contains an error which on checking my message back on the computer points to the fact that the error is BN’s not mine. Towards the end I claimed ‘Friends of Lever Park’ had argued the area of the development was 3.2hectares and the paper has mistakenly stated this figure as 0.2 hectares. Of course they’ve probably become lost in the figures as I go on to state that CBC’s calculation for the price of the application goes on to show they admit it to being 0.2hectares an area which obliged them to ensure the application was decided by elected Councillors which of course they failed to do. We need to pepper the ombudsman with letters telling her we know what she’s up to thro’ her reputation
Following a letter from Ruth Kelly I wrote to the Ombudsman and was contacted by one of their staff as they were unsure what my letter referred to. According to them there was no complaint about CBC or Go-Ape by the Friends of Lever Park on their records. I explained that my MP had suggested that residents should write and make the Ombudsman aware of our concerns and after some confusion it transpired that they have logged this under Bob Dootson’s name. I was told my comments would be passed to the “inspector” dealing with this case. So if anyone else is intending to write then I suggest they make reference to Bob in their letter.
It shouldn’t have been logged in my name.
All correspondence was on “Friends of Lever Park” letter headings, and signed by myself as Chairman of FLP.
And to correct the matter it is logged under a referance number which has to be quoted on all correspondence.
Even email contact has to use this referance number.
You are wrong Ann in telling people to refer to me in any letter sent to the LGO.
Ruth Kelly should have provided all the necessary info, when advising you to write direct.
Sorry Bob, it was only when your name was mentioned that the lady at the Ombudsman office could locate the complaint. She first checked under CBC, then Go-Ape, then Friends of Lever Park and told me there was nothing logged. I then said that there must be something in their system because the Ombudsman had written to the Friends of Lever Park and it had been reported on at the last meeting. I was then asked who had written and when I mentioned your name, she located the details immediately. It was not my intention to mislead anyone, I thought I was being helpful so that if anyone did write to the Ombudsman their letter could be linked to the action being taken by The Friends of Lever Park. If that was wrong of me Bob, I apologise. All I am trying to do is give support to the complaint made by the Friends of Lever Park. Unfortunately Ruth Kelly only advised me to write to the Ombudsman, she didn’t give any further information as to procedure. I do know now that it is logged under a reference number because I received a letter today from the Ombudsman indicating that the reference number given be quoted on all correspondence, email or telephone calls. We live and learn and unfortunately in doing so, we sometimes get it wrong.
Ann.
Glad it’s cleared up.
Mines a doudle.
You would think by now that I could spell DOUBLE. it sounds very much like trouble.
Make mine a doudle, too. They sound good!