More Support from Lindsay Hoyle MP
Mar 17th, 2009 by David
Lindsay Hoyle’s office have forwarded to us copies of letters sent by Lindsay to ourselves, the Ombudsman, Chorley and United Utilities. The first letter is addressed to the Friends of Lever Park:
Please find enclosed copies of the letters I have sent to United Utilities, Chorley Borough Council and the Ombudsman; and I will be in touch when I receive replies.
It is worth noting that a member of staff, once again, visited Lever Park; and had a good look round the area with the Chair and Vice Chair of Friends of Lever Park. I was deeply concerned to learn of the current state of the site and hope that the organisations involved recognise the scale of anger and upset this project has provoked; and review their positions.
If Go Ape feels that they need to submit and application for new planning permission – then I am concerned as this then suggests that the original planning permission, granted under delegated powers, was not appropriate for the site/project. If new planning permission is not required – then why have a number of trees been identified with blue dots.
I am aware of some comments on the blog/forum which indicate concern at the level of support from myself. I can only make it clear that despite the fact planning is a matter solely for the local authority, I have been heavily involved with researching the 1902 Act with DCLG, liaising with CBC when the original application was submitted – indeed I wrote to the council seeking an extension of the consultation process. My office has attended meetings at the Town Hall and on site at Rivington.
As shown in the contents of the attached letters, I continue to support Friends of Lever Park and would urge any residents to contact me directly on 01257 271 555 should they wish to discuss the matter further.
Kind Regards
Mike Gaskill
On Behalf of Lindsay Hoyle MP
Mr P Greene
Chief Executive
United Utilities
Dear Mr Greene
Re: Go Ape
I am writing to you on behalf of the residents of Rivington and indeed all of those who enjoy visiting Lever Park.
I have been advised by the local authority in Chorley that as the land owner at Rivington, United Utilities is responsible for the conduct and work carried out by Go Ape.
I have recently visited the Go Ape site and for a number of reasons, I am deeply concerned by the state of the site. It would appear that there are two trees, with strapping on, which are outside the permitted development area. Can you confirm whether or not this is the case?
Secondly, it is clear that the construction of one zip-wire in particular is not feasible; due to poor planning on the part of Go Ape – as a result, a number of trees have been felled or pruned unnecessarily. I would be grateful if United Utilities could advise on many trees have been felled or pruned, which are no longer in the pathway of zip-wures. Similarly, how many trees have been felled despite not having specific permission from the council?
As I have mentioned, as the land owner United Utilities has responsibility for Go Ape as the designated developer – which organisation is responsible for any breach of planning permission and what action is currently being taking to clarify this matter.
Fourthly, I am aware that Go Ape are considering submitting a second planning application in order to fell more trees, due to the errors made in the original plan for the site. After visiting the area I have identified around fourteen trees which appear to have been designated for pruning or felling. These trees have been sprayed with a large blue dot.
If Go Ape submits an application to remove more trees I believe it would be deeply detrimental to the area; therefore, I would ask that United Utilities does not allow Go Ape to submit an application to remove, fell or prune any more woodland.
Finally and most importantly – during my visit I identified a number of low level metal zip-wires; there is currently a clear threat to health and safety on the site and I must ask what United Utilities is doing to remedy this situation.
I feel that the decision making process for Go Ape has been deeply flawed and as a result the original plan has now been rendered obsolete, despite the felling of trees; and a new plan is being considered to fell even more trees.
I ask, therefore, if you believe the current state of the site is acceptable and similarly what action United Utilities is able and prepared to take to resolve this matter.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours Sincerely
Lindsay Hoyle MP
Ms Donna Hall
Chief Executive
Chorley Borough Council
Dear Donna
Re: Go Ape
I am writing to you on behalf of the residents of Rivington and indeed all of those who enjoy visiting Lever Park.
Further to your conversation with Mike, from my office, I thought it would be useful to write formally to provide my views on the situation.
Firstly, I appreciate that the Go Ape development has caused significant level of consternation for local residents and visitors to the park, who do not feel that under the Liverpool Corporation Act 1902 that the venture should go ahead.
However, I have been in touch with the Department for Communities and Local Government, which has advised that it is unable to state that the act has not been violated. If residents wish to pursue this specific issue, then it is a matter for the courts therefore I would ask if Chorley Borough Council would consider assisting Friends of Lever Park with this endeavour.
Secondly, I have recently visited the Go Ape site and for a number of reasons, I am deeply concerned by the state of the site. It would appear that there are two trees, with strapping on, which are outside the permitted development area. Can you confirm whether or not this is the case?
Thirdly, it is clear that the construction of one zip-wire in particular is not feasible; due to poor planning on the part of Go Ape – as a result, trees that have already been felled or pruned are now not in the path of the zip-wire. I would be grateful if the planning department could advise on many trees have been felled or pruned, unnecessarily. Similarly, how many trees have been felled despite not having specific permission from the council?
United Utilities are the land owners and Go Ape is the designated developer – which organisation is responsible for an breach of planning permission and what action is Chorley Borough Council taking against the appropriate company.
Fourthly, I am aware that Go Ape are considering submitting a second planning application in order to fell more trees, due to the errors made in the original plan for the site. After visiting the area I have identified around fourteen trees which appear to have been designated for pruning or felling.
If Go Ape submits an application to remove more trees I believe it would be detrimental to the area and indeed make a mockery of the planning process; therefore, I would ask that if such an application is made – then it is put before full committee and not considered under delegated powers.
Finally and most importantly – during my visit I identified a number of low level metal zip-wires; there is currently a clear threat to health and safety on the site. Whilst I appreciate that this is the responsibility of LCC, I must ask how Chorley Borough Council working to make the site safe.
I aware that there is a strong feeling that the planning and decision making process for Go Ape has been deeply flawed and as a result the original plan has now been rendered obsolete, despite the felling of trees; and now a new plan is being considered to fell even more trees.
I ask, therefore, if you believe the current state of the site is acceptable and similarly do you still believe that the original planning application for Go Ape should have been considered under delegated powers?
I look forward to your reply.
Yours Sincerely
Lindsay Hoyle MP
Mrs Anne Seex
Local Government Ombudsman
Dear Mrs Seex
Re: Go Ape Development – Rivington, Chorley
I am writing to you in response to your letter dated 10th March 2008 sent to my constituent, Mr Dootson, in his capacity of Chairman of Friends of Lever Park.
The correspondence you have sent is the provisional view of the Local Government Ombudsman; regarding the complaint made by Friends of Lever Park.
Having read the document, I am deeply concerned, as are members Friends of Lever Park – that the LGO does not feel it should investigate any further.
The decision to pass the original planning application under delegated powers, was clearly not in the best interests of the area.
Indeed, your letter notes that the area was not clearly recognised as a Historic Park; however, it is clearly identified on the Chorley Borough Council’s website as such a site.
Since you issued your provisional response – work has continued and indeed work has gone beyond the agreed development site. A large number of trees have been identified for either removal or trimming, subject to a second planning application. These trees have been sprayed with a large blue dot.
To conclude, the original planning permission which was granted under Delegated Powers has now been proven to be inappropriate; as the project simply can not be completed in line with the agreed planning permission.
In order for the project to be completed, more trees will have to be felled and pruned in order to re-route the zip wire. If the planning authority permits this, then it will support the view that the original planning permission was flawed.
I would be grateful if you could advise me as to why you do not feel that the above points are relevant, and why you do not feel they support the complaint made by the Friends of Lever Park.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours Sincerely,
Lindsay Hoyle MP
Anne Seex the Local Government Ombudsman is well known for buring council maladministration. She is after all, like all her fellow Local Government Ombudsmen, an ex council chief executive. She finds and reports maladministration in less that 1 in a 1000 cases. Even on the very rare occasions she finds and reports maladministration councils ignore her with impunity. The Trafford case is a good example.
http://www.psow.co.uk/
Thomas
What has come out of this sorry saga is the way big companies are treated different regarding planning laws.How can they get away with submitting a planning application which says they want to chop three trees down knowing full well they have every intention of chopping down another 20 plus?Its obvious the council did not do their homework properly or they would have realised this.they were so keen to fast track this application before the public found out they didn’t give themselves time to look at this application in depth.Go Ape knew if they had told the truth about the trees and other things,and it had gone to full committee [as it should have done], this development would never been approved.Now they have breached the conditions the council should stop them working.after all its a completely different planning application to the one they originally submitted. If it was Joe public the outcome would have been very different.As regards more trees being felled,do C.B.C. realise it is now the breeding season for birds.I would have thought it would be illegal to disturb nesting birds.What is the point of having planning conditions if big companies can ignore them? and the councils choose to turn a “blind eye.” It smacks of “money talks”
Greetings from Glasgow, where as you already know, we too are fighting Go Ape. As regards the Ombudsman, I am not the least bit surprised as they have such a bad track record of coming down on the side of councils that their whole remit is currently being looked at by the Scottish Parliament.
Glad that you have your local MP on board and that he is obviously getting involved. good luck with you fight.
I’ve just been on http://www.psow.co.uk/ , and the comments regarding the LGO support the conclusion I came to when I read the Ombudsmans provisional view.
Like I said last week, bring a swear box to the meeting on the 23rd.
I too have just been on the site Bob,i am shocked and disgusted by the findings.Where does it leave the ordinary honest decent people who live by the laws of the land?It seems it gets you nowhere.Its time these people who are supposed to be representing the public against unfair practices are doing nothing of the sort.Is it not time they were booted out of their nice cosy jobs and prosecuted.I think they have forgot who pays their wages.
The ombudsman reaction is disappointing, but the ombudsman lacks any real power anyway. The failure to reach a conclusion to the questions raised in the house of commons is more disappointing as it leaves the door open for future commercial exploitation.
Linsday Hoyle’s interventions are therefore very welcome. The letters constitute the strongest rebuke from anyone in an official capacity involved in the dispute. Chorley, United Utilties and the LGO will not be able to ignore the criticism and direct questions the letters contain.
Hopefully we can generate plenty of publicity for the letters and really put pressure on all concerned. Go Ape WILL have to apply for planning permission again, it WILL have to go to a full planning committee, and it WILL be opposed, loudly, by hundreds and hundreds of supporters from all over the North West.
Go Ape will be left, at best, with a half finished course and a lot of unhappy customers. In the middle of a recession, when Go Ape have already stated that they have scaled back their expansion plans elsewhere, the last thing they want is a dispute like this.
Go Ape should sue Chorley BC for botching the planning process, then pack up and go home!
David.
I’m afraid the letters will be treated in the same way as all the evidence we put before LGO.
We provided all the proof neccessary to prove wrong doings, but instead the LGO accepted hearsay evidence with no records kept.
Regarding the decision by Hazel Blears office to pass the responsibility over to the public to protect an Act of Parliament is a total betrayal of the public.
It appears to me that this office who is supposed to defend the Act is as usefull as a chocolate fire gaurd.
It’s an absolute joke that political figure head can make a statement that the people of this land should protect an Act of Parliament by taking the case to court.
If the Government can’t protect an Act, then what use are they ?
Part of our Council Tax goes towards paying for the law to be upheld. C.B.C. and U.U have quite clearly broken the law, because they have allowed Go-Ape to vandalise the woods, in their quest to make money.
It doesn’t appear that the police are going to do anything, yet if anybody who is a nobody, behaved in the way that C.B.C., U.U and G.A. have done, they would be arrested, charged and prosecuted, before you could say Jack Robinson.
To clarify a number of points that have been raised in earlier posts and comments on this blog; Go Ape is a private company working in conjunction with large companies and organisations such as United Utilities and Forest Enterprise to ensure that an area is used to it’s maximum potential. Very few local authorities would have the facility to inject this much capital into a single project, especially with the current budgetary restrictions.
The UK is fortunate to be at the forefront of this industry (and when was the last time we were able to say that about British Industry?), which is still comparatively new especially in the area of open access High Ropes courses.
“Although the first ropes courses were established in the UK sixty years ago, the industry has only flourished in the last twenty years. Unlike most adventure activities, ropes courses did not evolve as a sport or a pastime; instead they were developed as a tool for personal and team development. In this respect they remain one of the most powerful tools for outdoor experiential learning and are used to this end the world over. The use of ropes courses as a recreational activity is a recent development in the UK and whilst this is a rapidly emerging industry their use as a developmental tool still prevails.” (p5,”The UK Ropes Course Guide, Adventure Activities Industry Advisory Committee, 2009)
So there is the potential not only for Young People to enjoy a positive recreational experience, but also for other individuals (including adults) to take part in developmental work that may result in their own personal boundaries being pushed, in discovering new ways to appreciate an environment that seems completely alien from the ground, but most importantly to ENJOY THEMSELVES. This last point is one thing that everyone who uses Lever Park has in common, whether it be the dog walker, the equestrian, the mountain biker, or the person using Go Ape. As long as we remember that there may be compromises that need to be made; remember that dog faeces is a negative experience for many people, that clearing up after your dog is a negative experience for someone else if it has become stuck to their shoe/tyre, or being chased by a dog if they are scared of them will be detrimental to their enjoyment, or being on a horse that has been startled by a mountain biker. All of these will make people question their decision in coming to visit the brilliant venue that is Lever Park and the surrounding area.
There was a comment regarding the trees; I think that as a result of Go Ape that the trees that are in the immediate area of the course, and those that are directly involved in the course itself will be amongst the best looked after within Lever Park. This is because the EN directive governing the safe management of a High Ropes Course includes a requirement:
“If a ropes course is built in trees then the trees should be inspected, by an appropriately qualified arboriculturist, prior to the inaugural ropes course inspection. Thereafter the trees should be inspected at intervals recommended by a competent arboriculturist or every three years – whichever occurs the soonest. The frequency of inspections will relate to the species, health, location and age of the trees. It should perhaps be noted that an annual inspection by an arboriculturist is the norm in the ropes course industry. Trees may also need to be inspected by an arboriculturist after a severe storm. Whilst consideration should be given to the application, arboriculturists are not expected to be experts on ropes courses.” (p21,”The UK Ropes Course Guide, Adventure Activities Industry Advisory Committee, 2009)
A word of advice; if you are approaching people for support or clarification on an issue then it is recommended to ensure that your correspondence is free of typographical and spelling errors. In the letters that are linked to these comments I found at least 2 typographical or spelling errors. If I was to receive a letter that contained basic errors such as those I would not rely on it for being factually correct; if you can make small errors such as those, what bigger things have passed you by? You can avoid this by using a browser such as Mozilla Firefox or use a word processing programme such as Microsoft Office where an spelling mistakes or typographical errors will be highlighted.
Can I also point out that if you are busy slating the Labour Government that you, as the electorate, helped them get into the position that they are in by voting in the Lindsay Hoyle, whose voting record in Parliament doesn’t fill me with much confidence (did you know that he supported the Iraq war, did NOT support an inquiry into the Iraq war, and has voted in favour of Identity cards? If you want to live in a authoritarian state then he’s your man! Certainly it appears at a quick glance that his stance on environmental matters (including rural affairs) is a bit patchy to say the least)
I apologise now for the long, and slightly rambling comments, but I find that any form of narrow minded-ness is very hard to accept. I moved away from an area which did actually loose their access to the woodland where I pretty much grew up, as it was bought up by speculative developers and sold off in small parcels of land, as a result of this everyone lost access to an area approximately 4sq miles. I do have some sympathy with you and your concerns, but please, give people a chance to prove that they have got the best interests at heart, and remember that every part of the British countryside is managed to some extent by someone.
“Go Ape is a private company working in conjunction with large companies and organisations such as United Utilities and Forest Enterprise to ensure that an area is used to it’s maximum potential.”
No, Go Ape is a private company that works to make a profit. You may dress up its motives with as much management-speak gobbledegook as you want, but the ONLY non-profit organisation with the best interests of Lever Park at the top of its agenda is the Friends of Lever Park.
Smelly Paddler – would you like to declare a link with Go Ape?
Smelly Paddler advises:
“use a word processing programme such as Microsoft Office where an spelling mistakes or typographical errors will be highlighted.”
Lindy advises:
If you’d spent a fraction of the time it took you to write your contribution to actually proof read it rather than rely on a spell checker, the above error could have been avoided. Incidentally, this wasn’t your only error.
I can’t resist this one:
“Very few local authorities would have the facility to inject this much capital into a single project, especially with the current budgetary restrictions. The UK is fortunate to be at the forefront of this industry (and when was the last time we were able to say that about British Industry?)”
So we should be grateful that UU and Go Ape have generously joined forces to destroy this once peaceful part of Lever Park?
Smelly Paddler says, and I quote “I moved away from an area which did actually loose their access to the woodland where I pretty much grew up”. Er, did he mean “lose their access”. Spellcheck not working Smelly? And didn’t he say that if he received a letter containing such errors he would not rely on it being factually correct! Maybe we should treat his discourse in the same way.
Finally Smelly Paddler says compromises have to be made but unfortunately squealing people in trees above excitable dogs and horses is a compromise too far. Not even a long diatribe from Smelly Paddler can convince me that the Go-Ape experience has improved the beauty or tranquility of this wood. It dominates and it disfigures. Sorry Smelly Paddler you have not given me anything new to think about or to compromise on.
“I moved away from an area which did actually loose their access ”
New spellchecker required maybe before slating every else perhaps?
Can I also suggest maybe some grammar lessons on apostrophe use?
Sorry Ann, we were obviously typing at the same time