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

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