Minutes of LVRA monthly meeting Monday 11th July 2016

David Rhodes

LVRA Meeting: 20.00 hrs. on Monday 11 July at the Top Club 
Present: Karen Hawden (Chair), David Hempsall (Secretary), Bob Nicholas (Footpaths Officer), Darryl Nugent (Treasurer), David Rhodes (Social Media & Liaison Officer); Cllr Alyson Barnes, Ian Booth, Ann Corkin, David Corkin, John Dawson, Cllr Dorothy Farrington, Stephen Glenholmes, Marie Hargreaves, Michael Howard, Ken Iveson, Sandra Lawson, Stuart Lewis, Lewis Pearson, David Pilling, Jean Pilling, Patricia Rhodes, Jim Riley, Barbara St John, Stewart Smith, Barbara Walton, Eric Walton, Bett Watson and Ann White.
Apologies:, Michael Dop, Diane Ewart-Jones, Richard Green, Frank Pilkington and Neil Prestwich.
1. Opening Remarks – Apologies – Thanks 
1.1 Karen welcomed those attending.
1.2 Apologies were taken.
2. Minutes of Last Meeting, 13 June 2016 
2.1 Lewis proposed and Eric seconded acceptance of the Minutes.
2.1 The Minutes were taken as a true record, nem.con.
3. Matters Arising 
33.8.1 Loveclough’s Identity, update Paperwork had been submitted to the Royal Mail. To date, nothing further had been received. Community Centre, update Alyson updated the meeting: both Library and Community Centre are under threat; Rossendale Borough Council (RBC) is talking to Lancashire County Council (LCC); Alyson urged residents to participate in the public consultation, either online or in hard copy on the documentation she tabled for circulation; returns of hard copy could be made either by individual residents or else via the Community Centre; the closing date for receipt of comments was 14 August 2016. In answer to Sandra, Alyson said the whole building – including the pre-school – was under threat, adding that whilst she was confident that the Community Association would want to take the building on, doing so was a big ask. Alyson added some context: with the central government grant to local authorities at almost nil, councils were having to review all non-statutory provision; this was difficult given, for example, the exponential growth in demand for adult social care. There was wide-ranging discussion: in answer to David R, Alyson said LCC owned the building but provided no services from it; she thought LCC would be interested in effecting an asset transfer to the Community Association, given LCC’s need to reduce in number the 234 buildings it owns across the county; given the costs of maintenance and utilities, however, this was a challenge for the Community Association. Darryl wondered about issuing an A5 circular to all households, urging participation in the public consultation. 2 In answer to Lewis, Alyson said that salaried staff amounted to 1 x 10 hours per week plus 1 x 14 hours per week; future staffing would necessarily form part of a wholesale review of the operation. Ian asked what, following an asset transfer, might happen if the Community Association itself folded, to which Alyson said that any transfer was likely to be on a 999 year lease and if the association defaulted, then LCC would look to sell off the asset. In answer to Karen, Alyson said the Centre was funded out of hiring fees but there was scope to reduce waste, such as expenditures on cleaning and security; this would be essential given, for example, rates standing at £20,000 per annum (though there was likely to be some considerable remission on this in the event of a transfer).
7.1 Graveyard 
7.1.1 Bett reported criminal damage – including arson – to the Chapel.
7.1.2 This had resulted in the engagement of a security firm.
7.4 Defibrillator 
7.4.1 Darryl reported costs as supplied by Dawn Taylor of First Responders which stood at £1600 (or £18-1900 for a superior unit); allowing for installation, a new defibrillator would cost of the order of £2,000.
7.4.2 There was some discussion of the optimum location of any new defibrillator; Alyson reminded the meeting of the unit located at Harvey Longworth.
7.4.3 David H though the discussion academic as no approach had been received from the CPA Club; David C thought that the club wished to go it alone on the project.
4. Reports 
4.1 Chairman 
4.1.1 Karen reported the approach made by a new community group, Goodshawfold Pride, members of which wished to upgrade a site in the ward but which, being unconstituted, was unable to access funding.
4.1.2 Darryl had established contact with the group and, after consultation with LVRA officers, had offered to act on behalf of the group as a properly constituted association.
4.1.3 He had had dealings with Alison Wilkins which suggested that the group could access up to £500 of funding; offers of help had been received from, amongst others, Hod & Hoe who had been involved in setting up the allotments.
4.1.4 Karen and Darryl commended the involvement as principally a paper exercise but it was good that groups could now use the association for this sort of enterprise.
4.1.5 Karen reiterated the importance of residents’ involvement in the public consultation exercise on the Community Centre’s future; retaining it was very important.
4.2 Secretary 
4.2.1 In his short report, David dealt with distribution of the recent issue of the Limey Leader, submission of paperwork to the Royal Mail (regretting the absence of any support from our Member of Parliament), encouraging participation in the Community Centre debate and the Summer Fete (cf. Item 6, infra).
4.2.2 He thanked Bob for keeping him in the signage loop (cf. Item 5, infra), Darryl on Goodshawfold Pride and Alyson who wished to raise a matter under Any Other Business (cf. Item 8.1, infra).
4.3 Treasurer/Chairman LVAA 
4.3.1 Darryl reported funds at bank standing at £4,153.73; he had issued cheques to the value of £320 to the Secretary in respect of a WC and banners for the Fete and had to hand ±£50.00 in cash.
4.3.2 On the allotments, he reported that the plot for the proposed community centre had been levelled; flags measuring 2’x3’ were to hand and help was sought in laying these in 3
time for the end of the current season; then the search would be on to identify a building suitable for installation on the plot.
4.4 Footpaths Officer 
4.4.1 Bob presented his periodic report.
4.4.2 This is shown in full as Annex 1.
4.4.3 Alyson commended Bob for his work, pointing out that Rossendale has a network of footpaths more extensive than any other in Lancashire.
4.4.4 She relayed from her LCC colleague David Goode – with whom Bob has ongoing communication – that what was advisable in these days of straitened circumstances was a sensible plan, identifying priorities behind which LCC could place some of its limited resources.
4.5 Social Media & Liaison Officer 
4.5.1 David R reported 556 Facebook “likes”; he had rooted out aberrants, such as Indonesian spammers.
4.5.2 He attributed relative quietness to the onset of the holiday season.
4.5.3 Most interest was generated by photographs posted and by crime notifications.
4.5.4 He reported that he and Darryl now had ownership of the LVRA website and thanked Dean Bartlett-Smith for his past hosting of the site: Dean now had a new job which preluded his being able to continue.
4.5.6 David H updated the meeting on news of Derrick Bartlett-Smith’s hospitalisation: the meeting wished to pass on to Derrick and Carol its thoughts and prayers for a happy outcome.
4.6 LVEG 
4.6.1 Steve reported that the £10,000 grant which had been conditional upon the whole Loveclough Park project being fully funded had now been secured.
4.6.2 Tesco had now released £9,000 into the LVEG account to allow work on the Junior Play Area to proceed.
4.6.2 Meetings were being planned involving – inter alia – RBC and Proffitts to ensure the correct application of funds.
5. Loveclough signage, update 
5.1 Bob reported on progress which had begun with a visit made by Darryl, David R and himself on 14 June 2016: this is shown in full as Annex 2.
5.2 In discussion, Alyson confirmed that planning permission was not required and that her colleague at RBC – Bethan Frost – was keen to advise; she also thought that the Neighbourhood Forum would be interested in part-funding the project; she recommended proceeding via RBC (as did Proffitts) as there were VAT advantages to be derived from doing so.
5.3 Lewis though the proposal over indulgent; Darryl pointed out that the stone was being supplied gratis; Dorothy thought current procedures an irritant when compared with the straightforward installation of the Crawshawbooth stone, especially as she and Bob had identified an ideal site.
5.4. In response to Ian’s querying the proposed fee of £300, Bob said that his was because the stone could – in some people’s eyes – be regarded as an advertisement; the meeting thought this absurd; Alyson agreed, pointing out that the association was proposing to undertake work which would normally fall to RBC for nothing.
5.5. In response to David C, Darryl confirmed Bob Killelea’s willingness to provide equipment to drop the stone into a prep-prepared trench, gratis.
5.6 Darryl proposed that he, David R (if available) and Bob should meet Bethan Frost on site to establish all the feasibilities to everyone’s satisfaction. 4
5.7 Lewis raised the potential hazard of the proposed location; Dorothy disagreed, pointing out other, more significant hazards at and around the proposed site.
5.8 Bob closed the discussion, emphasising how essential it was that residents should respond to his report – Annex 2 – by contacting him: bobnic51@btinternet.com 
6. Summer Event 
6.1 Programme 
6.1.1 David H said Darry and he would meet shortly to draft the programme: experience suggested that timings needed to be less prescriptive.
6.1.2 There would be an Act of Dedication at 11.45 hrs. on the day: this would be strictly time-limited.
6.2 Advertising 
6.2.1 David had to hand two significant advertisements.
6.2.2 He would hope to raise sufficient advertising revenue for the programme – in which the Limey Leader would be nested – to make it self-funding.
6.3 Assistance 
6.3.1 He reiterated the need for people to commit to assisting at the Fete: in 2015, the presence of Air Cadets and members of the Rotary Club had made running the Fete much less stressful for association members.
7. Goodshawfold Pride 
7.1 Covered under Item 4.1, supra.
8. Any Other Business 
8.1 Development “creep”: Alyson flagged a concern that The Glory re-development was creeping beyond the original footprint; this would be investigated by RBC officers.
8.2 Hill Street Playground: Alyson would be abroad on Sunday, 17 July when the next tranche of work was planned; she invited participants – as she put it – “to pick a spot and get one with it”.
8.3 Indian Harvest car park: Ken asked after ownership of the car park adjacent to the Indian Harvest on the north side: Alyson said the area had been sold by RBC to the Indian Harvest in 1999 and it was now a private car park.
9. Next Meetings and Close 
9.1 20.00 hrs. on Monday, 08 August 2016: Top Club.
9.2 The meeting concluded at 21.08 hrs.. 5
Annex 1 Footpaths Officer’s Report 
Members may remember that back in January Denise brought to the attention of the LVRA the track to the North of Saint Marys and all Saints Church Goodshaw. As I reported at the time the track is unadopted and has no legal safeguards in place. I have therefore decided to place a modification order on the track to make sure it is saved. The track itself would appear to be of some considerable age appearing on maps as far back as the 1700s and could easily have been in use in the 1400s when the first church was built at Goodshaw. Through the minutes I would like to ask if any members have (a) any historical knowledge of Goodshaw and (b) If any members use the above track, have used the track, or know anyone who does, and would be willing to fill in an all-important Evidence of Use on Foot Form.
I will shortly be placing notices on the track to help gather information. I do not expect this MO to be as daunting to compile as my friend FP No 4 Rawtenstall turned out to be (fingers crossed) and I would expect it to be with Lancashire County Council by the early part of 2017.
Turning the clock back to 2013 in the early stages of recording footpaths for the survey I informed LCC about the considerable number of problems with the paths around Willow Farm. Since then I have been informed that the brief has been passed on, although nothing appears to have been done (my personal opinion is that someone’s briefs need the repeated attachment of a large pointy shoe). I would not mind too much if Willows Farm and its attendant paths were in an isolated position – but they are not and accesses could not be easier. It would in fact be a really positive step to get the paths sorted; Willows Farm and Folly Clough are two of the main black spots in the local footpath network with one having a negative effect upon the other. I will be contacting LCC again over this matter if nothing else to see what wondrous excuse they can come up with this time!
With regard to Folly Clough I must agree with a number of e-mails I have received on this matter – Folly Clough footpath-wise is a mess. In the upper reaches (north east) the paths, due to lack of use, have become overgrown and what paths that have been made do not correspond to the definitive map. And in the lower reaches Footpath No 76 Rawtenstall (below Folly House) requires a bridge, plus the whole area really needs a makeover with collapsed footpaths, lack of good stiles, and a total absence of signs. The area in general has suffered neglect for some time – but getting the jobs done in the foreseeable future seems as slim as ever.
However, under the present financial climate we all would agree that the councils are stretched and with parts of the footpath network it is simply a losing game of trying to play catch up. I am therefore going to investigate the possibility of raising funds to invest into the footpath network and in particular targeting Folly Clough. If the LVRA can attract funds and LCC are able to work outside the box there is no reason why improvements could not be made. I realise as has happened with LVEG this may take some time but I’m going to give it a good go, there really is everything to gain.
Bob Nicholas 
T: 07780 813 613
E: bobnic51@btinternet.com 6
Annex 2 Loveclough Signage 
As stated in the last minutes our Treasurer, Social Media Officer and I visited Whinney Hill Quarry on Tuesday 14 June. And I would like to thank Mr C J McManus who is a director of the company for his assistance. One disappointment of the visit was that because of site safety we were not allowed to leave the car so could not get “hands on” to examine the stones. Mr Mc Manus was duly dispatched from the car with tape measure in hand – and measurements taken, drawings made, and after an in car conference it was decided that the smaller of the two stones was the better choice. This stone measures 1900mm X 1300mmX 500mm (or in old money 6ft 3ins X 4ft 3ins X 20 ins). On our return from the quarry we visited the proposed site of the sign, and also looked at positioning the sign some 20 to 30 metres further north nearly facing the entrance to Middlegate Green. One great advantage of the second site (Middlegate Green) is that it is uncluttered. The first site would have the stone placed between the bus shelter, rubbish bin and the electric substation which could detract from the sign itself.
Since the visit to the quarry our Treasurer has been in communication with Rossendale Council to identify the legalities of placing the sign. This is still ongoing although at one point the council informed us that the sign was an “advertisement” and for the privilege of doing their work for them we would be obliged to pay £345.00 for placing the sign! At the time of preparing this report no further information on this situation was available.
Now to the all-important sign: my original inquiry was for a domed style sign with the wording “Welcome to Loveclough in the parish of Goodshaw” with the coat of arms of Rossendale in the dome. The sign would be cast in polyurethane with detail in relief and painted on a black background (as requested by the council) with gold letters and border, with Rossendale coat of arms in relief and painted full colours. I also asked for quotes (a) without the coat of arms as I expected the coat of arms would be a big part of the expense and (b) for a simple oblong sign. The following 3 quotes where received.
1) One cast sign 1200mm x 750mm (or 4ft X 2ft 6 ins). Drilled for wall fixing and supplied with brass dome head screws painted to match the sign. Price quoted is £1,140.00 added to this is £45.00 for carriage + VAT.
2) The sign as above but without the coat of arms was as expected somewhat lower being £850.50 which would attract £45.00 for carriage + VAT
3) The sign as above in an oblong format without the dome as the drawing 1200mm x 590mm (or 4ft X 23ins) comes in at £684.00 plus £25.00 for carriage + VAT. As stated above the height of the sign is now only 590mm. I personally think this is too small and that the original height of 750mm would be a better choice although with the slight penalty I would imagine of a higher price.
As no decision has been reached by the council this gives a breathing space to reflect on the information above – I would urge members to read this report on receipt – view the proposed sites – take note particularly when driving up from Crawshawbooth – and consider which version of the sign to order. Amendments can be made but please be aware that even with Alyson’s generous offer of £500.00 the cost practically for option 1 (unless more sponsors can be attracted) would eat into the LVRA’s funds quite significantly and it is still unclear whether there will be a charge from the council. By the next meeting we should be aware of the council’s decision and with members input be able to move on. Any comments and suggestions can be e-mailed to me and will be passed on to the remainder of the committee. Please give this project some serious consideration as we want as much feedback as possible.
Bob Nicholas E: bobnic51@btinternet.com