Minutes of LVRA monthly meeting Monday 8th August 2016

David Rhodes

LVRA Meeting: 20.00 hrs. on Monday 08 August 2016 at the Top Club


Present: Karen Hawden (Chair), David Hempsall (Secretary), Bob Nicholas (Footpaths Officer), David Rhodes (Social Media & Liaison Officer); C Ainsworth, Stanley Ainsworth, Barbara Ashworth, Julian Ashworth, Debra Booth, Mark Booth, Ann Corkin, David Corkin, Claire Fletcher, Stephen Glenholmes, Richard Green, Michael Howard, Sandra Lawson, Lewis Pearson, Frank Pilkington, David Pilling, Jean Pilling, Jim Riley, Barbara St John, Stewart Smith, S Spencer, Barbara Walton, Eric Walton and Ann White.

Apologies:, Cllr Alyson Barnes Ian Booth, John Dawson, Diane Ewart-Jones, Cllr Dorothy Farrington, Marie Hargreaves, Ken Iveson and Darryl Nugent (Treasurer).

1.        Opening Remarks – Apologies – Thanks
1.1 Karen welcomed those attending.
1.2 Apologies were taken.
2.        Minutes of Last Meeting, 11 July 2016
2.1 Eric proposed and Bob 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
33.8.1.1 Receipt of the paperwork submitted had been acknowledged by the Royal Mail.
33.8.1.2 A list of addresses affected by the procedure was expected and would be checked for accuracy by officers before being returned to the Royal Mail, after which the statutory consultation was likely to ensue.
3.3.4.2.2 Community Centre, update

3.3.4.2.2.1 Karen had attended a meeting held at the Community Centre on 2 August 2016.

3.3.4.2.2.2 She reported on the range of groups and activities currently being run.

3.3.4.2.2.3 More volunteers were required, both to keep existing activities going and to launch new ones.

3.3.4.2.2.4 David H was pleased that Darryl’s suggestion – that a flyer be produced to broadcast news of the centre’s plight, using the LVRA’s resources and distribution network –had indeed been implemented, the entire exercise (thanks to Dave Hughes’ very prompt printing of the flyer) being achieved in 72 hours: this was simply magnificent.

7 Goodshawfold Pride

7.1 LVRA had submitted an application for funding on behalf of Goodshawfold Pride, the group being unconstituted.

7.2 Funding had been secured: a satisfactory outcome all round and illustrative of what can be achieved when groups collaborate.

8.1 Development “creep”

8.1.1 In Alyson’s absence, David H reported receipt of news that Mr Ainsworth had submitted an application for four dwellings to be constructed to the north of the Glory, currently undergoing re-development, on the car-park.

8.1.2 Sketch plans of the proposal were circulated to the meeting.

4.        Reports

4.1      Chairman

4.1.1 Karen thanked Rossendale Borough Council for its prompt attention to a defective – and potentially dangerous – manhole cover.

4.1.2 She referred to receipt of an email from Andrew Hardman about the WCs and clock in the village (cf. Item 7, infra).

4.1.3 Radio Lancashire had been conducting a survey, inviting nominations for the ugliest building in the county: the WCs in Crawshawbooth had been nominated.

4.1.4 Stewart Smith had emailed her about the Pet Crematorium’s appeal against the county council’s rejection of its planning application (cf. Item 8, infra).

4.2      Secretary

4.2.1 David H had deal with issues touching Loveclough’s Identity, the Community Centre and Goodshawfold Pride earlier on the Agenda (cf. Item 3, supra).

4.2.2 David H thanked those who had distributed the Fete Programme-cum-Limey Leader.

4.2.3 He said he was in contact with Helen Bell of the Community Centre over future developments, drawing attention to the Ladies’ Night, scheduled for Friday, 28 October 2016, staged in collaboration with Lara Hewitt of Lara Look Fabulous and to be hosted at the Community Centre (cf. Item 9, infra)..

4.2.4 He reminded everyone that the closing date for submission of comments on the Community Centre to LCC was 14 August 2016.

4.2.5 He closed by drawing attention to Item 7 (infra) and said that what was said three years ago – that volunteers would increasingly be called upon to step into any breach caused by the borough council’s having to withdraw from non-statutory provision of services – was now well and truly upon us.

4.3      Treasurer/Chairman LVAA

4.3.1 Darryl had tendered his apologies for the meeting as he was on holiday.

4.3.2 He had advised that expenses had been incurred in respect of the WC to be supplied for the Fete and of banners.

4.3.3 David H said these would leave funds remaining in excess of £3,500.00.

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 Eric raised issues of local signage; Bob agreed that it was important to keep this up-to-date.

4.4.4 In response to Lewis who suggested that the history of Swinshaw Lane be incorporated in a locally generated “blue plaque”, Bob said he was already engaged on devising a display board, outlining a history of Goodshaw going back to the twelfth century.

4.5      Social Media & Liaison Officer

4.5.1 David R reported what he called “a quiet month” with 569 Facebook “likes”.

4.5.2 Most interest was generated by discussion over the village WCs, criminal damage to a vehicle on Hamer Avenue and plans submitted to building four dwellings on the car park at The Glory; this last had attracted 887 views but only two comments.

4.5.3 Whilst lying outside the LVRA’s area of operation, Fitzpatrick’s had been promoted as a local business under new management; a recent visit showed the Temperance Bar to be very busy; this was gratifying.

4.5.4 Work on the website was ongoing.

4.6 LVEG

4.6.1 Steve reported that a meeting with Rossendale Borough Council was expected in September.

4.6.2 Work could be expected to commence soon after technicalities had been resolved.

5. Loveclough signage, update

5.1 Bob presented a full report which is shown as Annex 2.

5.2 Eric wondered about incised lettering but Bob said that previous discussion had rejected this suggestion.

5.3 In response to Sandra, Bob said that the sign should be seen not so much as a boundary marker and more as an indication of the community.

5.4. David R said there were various options as to the precise location of the stone; these were a matter for ongoing discussion with the appropriate RBC personnel

6. Summer Event

6.1 David H said a meeting of the Fete Steering Group had taken place earlier in the evening: planning was now well advanced.

6.2 David reiterated the need for help on the day: Stewart offered his services on the preceding Saturday when tents would be erected.

7. Public facilities in Crawshawbooth, WCs and clock

7.1 Bob recounted his receipt of an email from the Chair and a request from the Secretary to produce something in rapid order for the Limey Leader (which he had done); he saw benefit in restoring both WCs and clock to use; he thought that this was the beginning of any process and that it would be sensible for someone to take the restoration of both on as a project, starting with some research in the village to establish whether or not the suggestion had traction: there was discussion.

7.2 David P explained how the approach to the LVRA had come about; David C asked who had previously operated the WCs and Bob thought it had been RBC; cost and vandalism had been – and would always be – considerations; Facebook suggested that support for the proposal and for doing everything possible to keep the Community Centre open was equally divided; Karen added that the centre has WCs and shop proprietors were not averse to people seeking to use WCs on their premises.

7.3 It was AGREED that LVRA should not risk dissipating its energies by taking on everything that came its way; it was further AGREED by a show of hands – and nem. con. – that supporting the Community Centre should be the immediate priority.

8. Pet Crematorium Appeal

8.1 David drew attention to the appeal, reminding the meeting that as the issue at stake was waste disposal, it was LCC which dealt with the matter, RBC being a consultee.

8.2 Stewart said that the closing date for comments was 19 August 2016 and that LCC intended to defend its decision to reject the application for planning permission.

9. Ladies’ Night, 28 October 2016

9.1 David H drew attention to the event which had been advertised in the Limey Leader and dealt with under Item 4.2.3 (supra).

10. Any Other Business

10.1 Submission of plans for four dwellings at The Glory (accessible via this link: http://www.rossendale.gov.uk/site/scripts/planx_details.php?appID=4620)

10.1.1 The plans having been circulated, Karen invited discussion.

10.1.2 In response to a question about the type of housing envisaged, Mr Stanley Ainsworth said that four, three-bedroomed properties were planned.

10.1.3 Asked about further development in the future, Mr Ainsworth demurred.

10.1.4 Debra and Mark were concerned about further development beyond the four dwellings proposed as one of the prime reasons for their moving to their property on Burnley Road had been the unobstructed view looking west.

10.1.5 In discussion with LVRA officers in 2015, Mr Ainsworth had said that any proposals to build on the car park would be “years down the line”; the proposals had been submitted twelve months after that discussion and 18 months after a similar comment made to Debra and Mark, both of whom felt that they would have to object; Sandra agreed.

10.1.6 Debra raised the issue of dealing with the Japanese knotweed present on the site, to which Mr Ainsworth responded that he had “someone on the case”, adding that knotweed flowers in September

10.1.7 Mark asked where there would be parking for residents in the development; Mr Ainsworth said this was as shown on the plans being circulated, adding that the car park was a brownfield site.

10.1.8 David R agreed that granting permission would establish a precedent and that would concern him; the decision lay with RBC and it was up to residents to make their views known; LVRA had experience of appearing at Development Control Committee meetings; he would circulate via the LVRA’s web presence the appropriate means to allow residents to make their views known; ACTION by the Social Media Officer and the Secretary (cf. Annex 3). [Messrs C and S Ainsworth and Mr Spencer left the meeting at this point, 20.50 hrs.]

10.2 Land at Hamer Avenue

10.2.1 Sandra queried ownership of a patch of land which was unclear: neither Alyson nor the constabulary had been able to help.

10.2.2 There appeared to have been some casual allocations of land to residents by the developers, McDermotts.

10.2.3 It was AGREED that residents with concerns should revert to the Land Registry; Bob AGREED to assist in trying to identify ownership of the plot in question; ACTION by Bob.

10.3 Submission of plans for four dwellings at The Glory

10.3.1 At the request of the meeting, the Chair allowed further discussion.

10.3.2 The Secretary reminded the meeting of LVRA’s stance to date: whilst supporting the re-development of The Glory, the association had reserved its position on any further development on the site, given the LVRA’s commitment to opposing any new development to the west of the Burnley Road: there was a wide-ranging discussion.

10.3.3 Residents had reported a number of what appeared to be contraventions; it was AGREED that these be drawn to the attention of RBC.

10.3.4 The Secretary said it would be important for officers to receive a clear steer from the meeting as to what might be the LVRA’s stance, given that circumstances had changed since the officers’ meeting with Mr Ainsworth and his agent in 2015.

10.3.5 The Chair called for a show of hands and it was AGREED, nem. con. that the association should object to the plans as submitted; ACTION by the Secretary.

9. Next Meetings and Close

9.1 20.00 hrs. on Monday, 12 September 2016 at the Top Club.

9.2 The meeting concluded at 21.07 hrs..

Annex 1 Footpaths Officer’s Report

Last month I mentioned in my report the situation regarding the footpaths appertaining to Folly Clough and Willows Farm. Since the last LVRA meeting, our Social Media Officer and I have done an in-depth survey of Folly Clough. One note of encouragement is that despite the lack of stiles and signposts the majority of the paths in Folly Clough show some signs of regular use.

I have e-mailed David Goode, Lancashire County Council’s Public Rights of way Manager, regarding the situation. I sent a complete overview of the problems with the footpath infrastructure within the circumference of the areas mentioned above, and outlined the course of action which the Limey Valley Footpath Group (LVFG) would be looking to take to address the problems.

David came back with a very positive reply – indicating LCC had no objection to the LVFG raising funds for new infrastructure on the footpaths and sending detailed outlines of the laws appertaining to renewing and replacement of stiles. He was especially pleased that I indicated we would be looking at installing kissing gate stiles (where appropriate) as this is in line with LCC “miles without stiles” policy. I will now start work on a detailed costing so an appropriate application for funding can be made.

Annex 2 Loveclough Signage Update

On Wednesday 3rd of August, Bethan Frost, Rossendale Council’s Conservation Officer, contacted the LVRA regarding the location of a boundary stone at the southern edge of Loveclough. She had obviously taken a good deal of time to appraise the situation and the following are her observations:

In my opinion, based on visual impact alone, and not considering any other aspect, I would consider the most appropriate option is site 2 (near Middlegate Green entrance) because there is nothing interrupting or distracting from views of it. If it were to be placed near the bus stop I think it would lose its impact somewhat. Also, I think due to its size it needs space around it to have more impact”.

The site mentioned above does have its merits. First, it removes the possibility of accidental damage to either the bus stop or electric substation during the installation of the stone, and would do away with the necessity to close the bus stop. Secondly just the fact that site 2 is more open will make the job of installation easier and as Bethan stated the more open aspect would show off the sign to its best.

I have discussed Bethan’s observations with Darryl and as the membership has not indicated a preference in this matter the recommendation is for the LVRA to go for site 2 in line with the Conservation Officer’s guide lines. There are final matters that need resolving but if no major obstacles arise at the eleventh hour by the next meeting we could be ready to “cut the sod”. With regard to the plaque this matter will be dealt with as a separate issue once the boundary stone is in place.

Bob Nicholas

T: 07780 813 613 E:bobnic51@btinternet.com

Annex 3: 2016/0317 – The Glory 1222 Burnley Road Rawtenstall – Outline: Erection of 4 no. dwellings

If you wish to contact Rossendale Borough Council about this proposal, you should write to the relevant Case Officer – James Dalgleish – either by e-mail or by post, identifying the proposed development – 2016/0317 – The Glory 1222 Burnley Road Rawtenstall – Outline: Erection of 4 no. dwellings. The relevant contact details are:

Mr James Dalgleish
Planning Officer
Rossendale Borough Council
Rooms 119 to 121
The Business Centre
Futures Park
Bacup, OL13 0BB
E: Planning@rossendalebc.gov.uk
T: 01706 238643

Guidance on how to go about making your observations follows here. Whilst writing in support of the scheme is straightforward, there are rules which must be observed if it is your intention to oppose the proposal.

A. CHECK-LIST
What sort of things can be taken into account in opposing a planning application?
In considering a planning application, a Council has a statutory duty to have regard to the provisions of the Local Plan and any other “material considerations”. The most common “material considerations” include the following, although the list is not exhaustive.

  • Local, strategic, regional and national planning policies
  • Government circulars, orders and statutory instruments
  • Previous planning decisions (including appeal decisions)
  • Design, visual appearance, and materials
  • Layout and density of buildings
  • Loss of daylight or sunlight
  • Overshadowing/loss of outlook (but not loss of view)
  • Overlooking/loss of privacy
  • Noise and disturbance from use
  • Smells
  • Light pollution
  • Highway safety issues
  • Traffic generation
  • Vehicular access
  • Adequacy of parking
  • Loss of important trees
  • Landscaping
  • Nature conservation
  • Intrusion into the Open Countryside/ Green Belt
  • Risk of flooding
  • Effect of Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas
  • Archaeology
  • Hazardous materials and ground contamination
  • Disabled persons’ access

What cannot be taken into account?
Many concerns cannot be addressed through the planning process, these include:

  • Loss of view
  • Loss of property value
  • Breach of restrictive covenant
  • Loss of trade to a competitor
  • The level of profit a developer might make
  • Personal circumstances of the applicant (in most cases)
  • Moral objections e.g. to uses such as amusement arcades and betting offices
  • Matters controlled under Building Regulations or other non-planning laws, e.g. structural stability, drainage, fire precautions etc.
  • Private issues between neighbours e.g. land/boundary disputes, damage to property, private rights of way, covenants etc.
  • Problems arising from the construction period of any works, e.g. noise, dust, construction vehicles, hours of work etc.
  • The development is already completed

B. SAMPLE LETTER OF OBJECTION

If you wish, use this sample letter as a guide to writing an effective letter of objection to your local council about a planning application.

  • Your name and address:

  • Address of the local authority department dealing with the application, as stated on the site notice/neighbour notification/newspaper advertisement for the planning application, and the date (shown above):

  • Name of planning officer dealing with case (Mr James Dalgleish):

  • Reference (2016/0317):

  • One-line summary including what the application proposes, where it is (the site) and who is proposing it (the applicant (The Glory 1222 Burnley Road Rawtenstall – Outline: Erection of 4 no. dwellings):

  • Interest and general line of person making representation:

  • Reference to Government policy and site-specific local development plan policy which, though not yet adopted, is the most recent and has already been consulted on:

  • Where applicable, reference to the Neighbourhood Plan for the area:

  • Reference to Government policy and to ‘planning history’ – the local authority’s previous planning decisions in the area:

  • Reference to other issues which affect the community as a whole, rather than individual interests. You could also mention the parish plan or village design statement, if these exist for your area:

  • Reference to development plan generic development control policy which, though not yet adopted, is the most recent and has already been consulted on; as well as to further issues of concern to the wider community:

  • Reference to other bodies in the local community who support your position:

  • Formal request to speak at the local planning authority committee meeting at which the application may be decided, some local planning authorities require respondents to planning applications to give notice, in their response, of their wish to speak at committee meetings:

  • Signature:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.