Article 74 of the final decision:

“I have also found that the Council acted with maladministration by not complying with its own constitution that excludes officers from using delegated powers to determine planning applications on sites that are over one hectare and the decision would be contrary to a written comment received from a consultee”.

The Council have stated:

In order to clarify, Chorley BC do not accept the findings of the Local Government Ombudsman in the decision note where they relate to alleged breaches of the Council’s Constitution. It is not accepted the use of delegated powers amounted to a breach of the Constitution.

That is the position of the Council.

Lets see what the Ombudsman makes of this, or are they as usefull has a chocolate fireguard?

The Constitution is there for a reason, and cannot be interpreted in any other way” Responsibility for Functions” appendix 2 of the Constitution 6.6 C (ii)

Share/Bookmark

1) Chorley’s Use of Delegated Powers.

Delegated powers allow planning decisions to be made by a small group of three council officers, rather than a full planning committee which would include elected members. They are designed to be used for small scale planning applications, typically extensions to residential properties, conservatories and so on.

Chorley disregarded their own rules on the use of delegated powers to approve planning applications. The rules specify that developments over 1 hectare must go to a full planning committee, rather than the group of three non-elected officers who operate under delegated powers. All the planning application documents state that the development is over 3 hectares. In spite of this, the final decision was still made under delegated powers.

Amusingly, when challenged over the size of the development, Chorley now say that the development is less than one hectare, because most of the development is in the trees, not on the ground. Chorley also insist that the development is a leisure development, not a commercial development and that this also allows them to use delegated powers. We have been unable to find any reference to leisure development being treated in any different way to commercial development under delegated powers.

2) Consultation

Chorley’s consultation process was flawed from the start:

2.1 Consultations or Presentations

Go Ape made presentations to Rivington Parish Council, to the Rivington and Brinscall Advisory Group and to Rivington Heritage Group. Attendees at those meeting have confirmed that they felt they were being invited to informal presentations, not formal consultations. They would have given different responses had they felt that a formal consultation was being made. They also confirm that some factual claims made for Go Ape were incorrect. Chorley Council themselves were not at the presentations and no minutes or meeting notes seem to have been kept. Its also worth noting that Rivington Heritage Group is a group almost entirely composed of United Utilities appointees.

2.2 Local Residents

Chorley have confirmed that only three properties were notified of the plans:

• Great House Barn
• Great House Barn Information Centre
• Gilsbrook Cottage

The Barn and Information Centre are commercial properties whose landlord is United Utilities. Gilsbrook cottage is three quarters of a mile from the site area. There are many properties closer to the site than this one, they include the vicarage, the primary school, the church and many more dwellings. The nearest dwelling to the site is Great House Cottage which is next door to the Barn, and yet they were not notified.  The site notices stated that “it has not been possible to contact all the nearby residents directly.” But all the local residents are on Chorley’s own electoral roll.

2.3 Ecology Consultants

Chorley insist that they took due regard to ecological reports from qualified consultants before approving the plan. However, Go Ape’s own research into wildlife in the area concluded that ”breeding birds are not affected by people in trees”!

2.4 Chorley’s Own Officers

We have copies of several internal memos and emails by Chorley’s own officers recommending that the development should be rejected.

2.5 Notifications

The three site notices referred to Go Ape as being 250m from a place called ‘Great House Green’. Rivington and Lever Park does not contain any place called ‘Great House Green’ – it does not exist. It was therefore difficult to understand where the proposed location for Go Ape was.

3) The Lever Park Act 1902

The Act (drafted by Lord Leverhulme) specifically forbids commercial developments. Chorley has consitently maintained that this act is not relevant to the planning process and insists that no thought was given to the act as the planning application was approved. However it is Chorley’s duty to ensure its action comply with the law and it cannot shirk its responsibilities so lightly. The question has now gone to the House of Commons.

If there are any errors in this document, please let me know and I’ll correct them. Any errors or omissions are entirely my fault.

Share/Bookmark

Just to let you know that I’ve had no response to my letter to Chorley Borough Council arguing the case over how the Go Ape development could go ahead, given the shoddy nature of the ecology report! Well, I have had replies, but no one has addressed the queries I raised – they are standard answers which I think anyone who has written to the council will have received also.

So no answer to the questions that the trees were not thoroughly enough examined given their capacity to support wildlife, neither was research enough done to find out what wildlife exists, that flowers and birds of note exist in the development area, that the pressure of increased use on the area would be far greater than the report suggests. I could go on and on…

But I won’t, because I think the whole thing hinges on the fact that they have broken the covenant of the 1902 Act.

I love the idea of the high wires, but NOT IN RIVVY!! They could not have chosen a worse place. And how can a new car park be in any way justified? To encourage more cars to use the area and ruin what people come to see is not traffic management! At the moment the chaos that is Rivvy at weekends works out its own solution – people soon learn that they either can’t park there or they come earlier! Its all part of Rivvy’s enduring charm…..

If you want to make your views known you can add a comment to any article, use the forum, or use the ‘Contact’ page, you can even email us at mail@leverpark.co.uk.

Share/Bookmark

Section 9.5 clause D       Delegation can’t be used if the decision is contrary to a written comment received from a local resident,a town or parish council or any other outside body or organisation that has been consulted.

That explains why NO local residents were contacted, and NO outside bodies or oranisations were consulted.

Share/Bookmark

This application was put through Delegated Powers and controlled throughout its process by JANE MEEK,and finished up with her signing the final planning permission.

Chorley Borough Council have confirmed that the complaint is under investigation by JANE MEEK.

( WAKE UP CHORLEY,HOW CAN SHE INVESTIGATE HERSELF).

What is being uncovered here is only the tip of the iceberge,and if Chorley want to make any attempt to restore public confidence they should sort their house out and quick.

I wonder what Chorley’s MP thinks about this.

Share/Bookmark

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/lindsay_hoyle/chorley

Alternatively,

From www.lindsayhoyle.com:

35-39 Market Street
Chorley
Lancashire
PR7 2SW

Chorley Constituency telephone:  01257 271555
Chorley Constituency fax:  01257 277462

House of Commons telephone:  020 7219 3515
House of Commons fax:  020 7219 3831

e-mail:  hoylel@parliament.uk

Share/Bookmark

Also why were the residents of Rivington and surrounding areas not informed of the planned proposal, instead they put up isolated notice’s stating it has not been possible to notify all the nearby residents. (WHY?)

I have in my possesion a 1997 edition of the Bolton Evening News with a full page coverage of the facts in North West Water’s attempt to introduce a theme park and admission charges to Lever Park. Exactly the same tactics were employed then as now in that consultation was non existant. In 1997 just like now,the people of Rivington and surrounding areas were not notified about the proposals for the area. The common denominator in both cases being Chorley Council.

I urge any-one who feels that were not consulted over the application for Go-Ape to contact Donna Hall, Chief Executive, Chorley Borough Council, Town Hall, Market St, Chorley.

If you are a Rivington resident we’d like to know if you were notified, and if so, how? Likewise, let us know if you weren’t notified. The easiest way is to leave a comment on this entry by clicking on the Comments link below.

Share/Bookmark