Share/Bookmark

Car Park Plans

We expect United Utilities to formally apply to Chorley Council for planning permission for their new car park and traffic management at some time during December or early January. We must make sure that the application for objections doesn’t get lost in the Christmas holiday rush.

So I invited United Utilities to publish their proposals on this site to make sure that they had the chance to present their proposals properly. I haven’t heard back from them, so here’s the notes I made immediately after their public consultation back in August:

United Utilities propose:

• to create a new pay and display car park in a field adjacent to the Lower Barn on land that is legally not part of Lever Park.
• to make the all the current car parks in Rivington pay and display
• to charge between 50p and £1 for parking (probably 50p for a couple of hours and a pound for all day parking, with a season ticket option for £60-£70 pa)
• to close the car parks at 5.00pm
• to introduce a one way system forcing up along the road to the top barn, then down an existing bridleway back to the main road
• to improve the road surfaces on the new one way system

The open day was well attended. The United Utilities staff who attended are very professional and obviously very dedicated to the upkeep of Rivington. However, most people I spoke to were sceptical. Here were some of the criticisms voiced by myself and others:

• The land was given to the people of Bolton and Chorley by Lord Leverhulme for free access. This right is enshrined in the relevant by-laws, so United Utilities cannot charge for car parking on any of the current car parks.
• At peak times, more people will park on the public highway (i.e. the main road to Rivington and street off Lever Park Avenue and Sheephouse Lane) rather than pay for parking.
• The only peak times are between 11.00am and 4.00pm on Saturday, Sunday and Bank Holidays. Extra car parks will be redundant at all other times and days.
• Will the money raised by car parks be spent on the Lever Park area? If so, how much money do they expect to raise.
• Will the money be publicly accountable?
• What is the environmental impact of converting a field into a car park. What wildlife is in the field currently? What is the visual impact of field of tarmac or gravel?
• If the changes make Lever Park more popular, the number of car journeys into the park will increase at a time when Greater Manchester is considering wide-ranging strategies to reduce car journeys. So why no public transport options within the plans? No improvements to the cycle paths? A bus service used to run at weekends from Horwich.
• Horwich, Bolton and Chorley have a large number of people without access to a car. For the less able-bodied, Rivington is currently out of reach (there being no public transport into the area) – why are these people not being addressed by these plans?
• Alternatively, car park charges could make Lever Park less popular. Car park charges in nearby Bolton town centre have proved contentious. If fewer people visited the park, clearly this would run against Lord Leverhulme’s original vision.
• The proposed one-way system forces cars to return to the main road at a dangerous spot.
• There is currently a lack of clarity of the way in which money raised from the car parking charges would be re-invested. United Utilities need to be very clear about what the money will be spent on.
• Concerns were also expressed that the planning process for the recently approved ‘Go Ape’ centre didn’t give enough people chance to make their feelings known.

The public consultation was back in August. Many of the people who attended completed the feedback forms and made the suggestions above, but so far we have no indication that United Utilities have made any changes to their original plans.

All the plans are on display at the Great House Information Centre (if it’s open, and if you can get up the stairs). Its a shame that United Utilities hasn’t put the plans on-line where more people can see them.

United Utilities need to tell us:

1. When will the plans go before the full planning committee (no delegated decisions please!)
2. Have UU taken any account of the views expressed by members of the public?
3. What changes have UU made to the original plans? Or was this just another example of meaningless, sham ‘consultation’?

What do you think about the car park? Vote in our new on-line poll:

[poll id="3"]

Share/Bookmark

I would like to respond to the recent letters on the subject of Rivington, car parking and the new Go Ape development.

Firstly, I’m lucky enough to live and work in Chorley and Rivington and, like the people who have written to express their concerns, I have no wish to see this beautiful area spoiled.

It is important to look at the facts. Lord Leverhulme bequeathed Lever Park to Liverpool Corporation for the provision of water and the continued free enjoyment of the public. This philosophy is not going to change but it is important to recognise that the park has changed in character over the years to meet the public’s needs.

The fact is that the Lever Park Act 1902 still applies and the public’s needs are currently being articulated by the Friends of Lever Park, not United Utilities.

We now have toilet facilities, a visitor centre, maintained paths and a large car park which is often overwhelmed on a fine weekend.

Lord Levehulme would have recognised the need for all of the above, except perhaps for the large car park. None of them would have caused him to rethink his bequest. Lever Park was very busy in 1902. Nothing has changed except the number of cars.

There are already commercial ventures like the popular café and barn which hosts functions like weddings and barn dances. These facilities are there for those who want to use them and pay for them.

The cafe has been in existence, more or less unchanged since Leverhulme’s time. The barn has been used in its present capacity for decades. Weddings are new, but Leverhulme would have approved, I’m sure. Again, nothing has changes since Leverhulme made his bequest.

The Go Ape venture will be located in the same popular and busy area near the Great House Barn.

I agree the area is busy, which makes it a particularly bad location. Why was it not located in one of United Utilities more remote forests?

Altogether it will occupy less than seven acres of the 800-acre estate. It will have its own small 40-space car park for visitors who will need to pre-book, so there will be no impact on existing parking.

Go Ape have taken over the only plantation of tall, mature conifers in Lever Park. I presume because these trees are tall and straight enough to allow platforms and zip wires. Those seven acres were unique within the 800-acre park, now spoiled by unecessary felling.

A full ecological survey has been carried out and we have been working with Go Ape to make sure that any trees removed are replaced by further planting.

You cannot replace 100 year old trees overnight. Chorley’s own officers consistently advised Chorley council to refuse planning permission.

We understand that not everybody likes change but many people have told us they are looking forward to this exciting new addition to Rivington.

My generous estimate (based on meeting people, the website polls and petitions) is that 25% of people are in favour, and 75% are against. Of the 25% who are in favour, most are not regular users of the park. Remember that if United Utilities proposed a new McDonalds on the site, some people would still be in favour!

United Utilities is committed to protecting the environment, ecology and biodiversity of the land it manages. The results speak for themselves, with our estates being home to some of the last strongholds for endangered species like the hen harrier and red squirrel.

United Utilities make it sound as if Go Ape is of advantage to wildlife. Lets be clear: there are no ecological benefits to Go Ape.

We have won awards for our work with partners like the RSPB, so it would make no sense for us to disregard environmental concerns.

I’m sure they are working with the RSPB elsewhere but in Lever Park United Utilites are not partnering with any outside bodies other than Go Ape.

We are still considering our plans for the main car parking issue and we’re consulting with the Rivington Heritage Trust and the community.

Good, every credit to United Utilities for consulting properly over the car parking issues. If only Go Ape and Chorley council had done a proper consultation back in the summer! However the Rivington Heritage Trust is a non-elected body with no accountability. Most of the people in the trust were appointed by United Utilities.

If charges were implemented, they would be ploughed back into maintaining our estates.

If charges were implemented, there is no guarantee that a penny would be spent within Lever Park. United Utilities estates are huge, and the majority of the money would be spent elsewhere, or simply disappear into United Utilities accounting system to re-appear as shareholder dividends.

Other organisations like national parks and the National Trust have a similar duty to maintain bequeathed estates and they operate a similar system. Those who enjoy walking in the estate will always be free to do so.

United Utilities’ stewardship of Lever Park cannot be compared with the work of the National Trust. United Utilties are a public company with a responsibility to their shareholders. The National Trust is a registered charity with national responsibilities.

We believe our proposals balance the objectives of protecting water quality and the environment, while providing an amenity for people of all ages to enjoy, including the new generation of visitors to the outdoors.

Go Ape is not an amentity to anyone except the well-off. A family of four would have to pay £90 for a session on the Go Ape course. Visitors must be over 10 years old. Go Ape is not family friendly and will not encourage the ordinary families of Bolton and Chorley to visit the area.

Share/Bookmark

It is important to look at the facts. Lord Leverhulme bequeathed Lever Park to Liverpool Corporation for the provision of water and the continued free enjoyment of the public. This philosophy is not going to change but it is important to recognise that the park has changed in character over the years to meet the public’s needs.

Click the link above to see the full letter. What do you think? Add a comment to this post using the links below.

Share/Bookmark