All a big mistake?
Nov 27th, 2009 by David
Go Ape have opened a forum on their website to discuss their proposal for the Itchen Valley. This interesting question and answer appeared a few days ago:
Q: The Friends of Lever park claim that you applied to cut down 3 trees, but you actually felled 21 with no felling license, before you were stopped by objections. Is this true? Have you applied to fell more? Have you applied for an extra zip wire there? Is this what we can expect at IVCP? A few questions, please answer them all. Thank-you
Submitted by J on
19 November 2009A: You are correct, there were more trees cut down than we had planned at Lever Park. This was a mistake, and not intentional and we can assure you that this mistake will not be made again. In the initial design for the course at Lever Park, we planned for a zip wire on site 4, however this would have meant further trees being felled so we did not proceed with this plan. As a result, we have been running with a solution of a down ladder. This has reduced course flow, and so results in more people on the ground and a long walk to the next site, which is less than satisfactory for us and for other park users. We have recently worked out a slightly different design to allow for the planned zip wire which will not require further felling. We can assure you that our application for Itchen Valley will remain as it is and there will be no further additions to the course.
Submitted by Go Ape on
23 November 2009
Now this statement out of the horses mouth makes a mockery of the figures and reasons for felling, that Chorley submitted to the Ombudsman.
Now is it OOCH or OOOOOCH that hurts?
Surely Chorley BC can be taken to task over their incorrect submissions to the Ombudsman. Totally out of order!!!
Or is it too late to do anything about this gross misrepresentation
or the truth!!
Who do Go Ape think they are fooling when they say they chopped down those trees by accident?I believe that they had every intention of chopping down more trees than they had permission for.To make matters worse,Chorley council and U.U.tried to cover it all up, as well as trying to discredit people who have proved that the planning laws have been flouted. I cannot believe that Go Ape have won awards for conservation.It just shows how farcical the whole system is.As for them saying they won`t do it again I repeat, WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE KIDDING?. Still they certainly pulled the wool over Chorley council`s eyes!!
Lever Park is the scene of a drama.
Go Apes clients are victims of trauma.
Some gorillas and baboons too
Shock, Horror they have to queue!
The Rivington course doesn’t flow as it ought
And the apes aren’t getting the thrills that they sought.
Instead they spend lots of time hanging round
With feet planted firmly down on the ground!
It seems that a zip wire is urgently needed
So the flow through the course will appear to be speeded.
Local residents don’t all share this view,
But remember the Act of 1902
When William Lever of soap powder fame
Created this park that bears his name.
Commercial development should not be extended.
This is definitely not what his lordship intended!
Seeing it was a mistake, and the Ombudsman’s findings support our complaint. Should Chorley not do the honourable thing and revoke the planning consent.
Without these breaches the application would never have got through, the people of the Borough of Chorley and surrounding districts have had their trust betrayed.
Bridges need to be built, and what better way ,than put right the mess that as been created, and bring to account the person/persons responsible for this public betrayal.
The Ombudsmans report refers to one position of prominence, and in our opinion, the person who holds this position should be held accountable.
In our opinion the findings of the Ombudsman against Chorley is unprecedented in this Borough, and it shouldn’t be allowed to be swept under the carpet.
There are many good and honest people on the Council, and they too have been let down and embarrassed by the sequence of events.
Senior Officers/Officials within the Council have been given some bad advice during the investigation, and they should now be asking why and for what purpose were they misled.
For example, who told the Chief Executive that anything in the trees doesn’t count, and was used as an excuse to try and reduce the site area from 3.2 hectares to around 100 sq mtrs.
Town & Country Planning Act (Meaning of Development), anything IN, ON, OVER or UNDER.
Our meeting on the 10th December should be very interesting, and in our opinion the action hasn’t finished yet.