Minutes of the LVRA monthly meeting Monday 9th January 2017

David Rhodes

LVRA Meeting: 20.00 hrs. on Monday 9th January 2016 at the Top Club

Present: Karen Hawden (Chair), David Hempsall (Secretary), Darryl Nugent (Treasurer), Bob Nicholas (Footpaths Officer); Marian Bent, Debra Booth, Ian Booth, Mark Booth, Ann Corkin, David Corkin, John Cronshaw, Andrea Davies-Heywood, Michael Dop, Michael Howard, Ken Iveson, Lewis Pearson, Frank Pilkington, David Pilling, Neil Prestwich, Jim Riley, Sandra Simpson, Barbara Walton, Eric Walton, Ann White and Chris Whiting.

Apologies: Cllr Alyson Barnes, John Dawson, Diane Ewart-Jones, Steve Glenholmes, Richard Green, Marie Hargreaves, Jean Pilling and David Rhodes (Social Media & Liaison Officer).

1.        Opening Remarks – Apologies – Thanks

1.1 Karen welcomed those attending.

1.2 Apologies were taken.

2.        Minutes of Last Meeting, 12 December 2016

2.1 Lewis proposed and Eric seconded acceptance of the Minutes.

2.2 The Minutes were taken as a true record, nem.con.

3.        Matters Arising The Glory, update [Planning Application 2016/0317]: there was nothing further to report pending the appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

3.8 Proposal at 801 Burnley Road, update [Planning Application 2016/0474]

3.8.1 The application for a convenience store having been rejected by the Development Control Committee, Marian said that the estate Agent’s (Petty’s) sign now indicates that prospective buyers should ensure the suitability of the premises for any proposed change of use.

3.8.2 Sandra said the applicant had now sought premises in Newchurch.

7 2 Commercial Street, update [Planning Application 2016/0478]: there was nothing further to report pending the appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

9.1 Principal Planning Officer

9.1.1 Communication with Adrian Smith over Phase 2 of RBC’s Strategic Plan had been established.

9.1.2 At this stage, Adrian had nothing to advise but he would do so when information became available.

4.        Reports
4.1      Chair

4.1.1 Karen outlined concerns about the A682 Burnley Road following accidents before Christmas adjacent to Goodshawfold Road, opposite Broadings and to Hamer Avenue; there was some feeling about reducing the current 40 mph limit which was widely disregarded by drivers.

4.1.2 A decision had been reached about the Loveclough marker stone: this would be considered later on the Agenda.


4.2.1 David reported relative quiet over Christmas and New Year with significant developments (cf. Item 3, supra) pending.

4.2.2 After consulting with officers, he had contributed a piece outlining LVRA’s objections to proposals to extend the Pet Crematorium; he thought LVRA’s contribution would hold little sway, given the opposition to the plans of LCC and RBC; none the less, it was important that the association should be so involved.

4.2.3 He had written letters of appreciation to Park Royal and Killeleas, thanking them for providing, delivering and installing the marker stone at nil cost to the community.

4.2.4 The Royal Mail consultation over Loveclough’s postal identity would commence very shortly.

4.2.5 The next issue of the Limey Leader was in active preparation; going to print would probably await developments in one or other of the substantial issues awaiting resolution; help with securing advertising was sought as, to date, none was forthcoming.

Treasurer/Chairman LVAA

4.3.1 Darryl reported £4,010.83 at bank, a Goodshawfold Pride cheque being due and £155.00 currently held as cash.

4.3.2 He reported that the hedgerow surrounding the allotments had survived very well.

4.4      Footpaths Officer

4.4.1 Bob majored on his findings on Folly Clough bridge which was not a straightforward case: his full report is shown as Annex 1.

4.4.2 Bob said there was patently a need for dialogue.

4.4.3 Chris said that there was a precedent for LCC’s involvement: in the 1970s, despite the bridge’s being in private ownership, LCC had installed chestnut palings.

Social Media & Liaison Officer

4.5.1 In David R’s absence, recuperating after his motor accident, no report was presented, such issues as have arisen being covered by Bob (cf. Item 5, infra).

4.6 LVEG

4.6.1 In Steve’s absence, no report was presented.

4.6.2 Frank advised the meeting that there would be a litter-pick, commencing 10.00 hrs. on Sunday, 15 January meeting at Loveclough Park.

5. Loveclough marker stone, update

5.1 Bob thanked all those who had contributed to the vote to established a preferred option; he would present abridged version of his findings “to avoid terminal boredom”; the full results of the vote would be included in the Minutes (shown as Annex 2).

5.2 There was a clear majority in favour of Plaque 2.

5.3 Funding would be sought from the Neighbourhood Forum (which Karen would attend in place of David R who was indisposed).

5.4 Chris proffered the suggestion that incised brass might be more economical than a cast plaque; Bob proffered details of the specification; Darryl said that in addition to the £500 being sought from the Neighbourhood Forum, Alyson had offered a further £500.00; if successful, this would leave the whole project as having cost the association £4-500.00.

6. A682 proposals

6.1 Karen introduced discussion by reporting that issues touching on road safety had been mentioned to her by a number of residents: there was a wide-ranging discussion.

6.2 Darryl said that following the most recent incident, Highways had appeared to study the scene and that the double yellow lines at the top of Goodshawfold Road were to be re-instated (following recently completed re-surfacing work).

6.3 John C drew attention to the issues affecting Chapel Street and its junction with the A682; Darryl felt that the issue was less a matter of yellow-lining than of limiting speed.

6.4 Several people thought that traffic control around the school was an issue, despite the 20 mph restriction during times of pupils coming to and leaving the premises.

6.5 Darryl felt very strongly that Goodshawfold Road set a precedent, given the narrowness of the junction with the A682, the incidence of accidents and the use of the road by HGVs for access.

6.6 Karen advised that a relative of hers had been killed on the A682 by a vehicle thought to be travelling in excess of 70 mph.

6.7 Chris said that installing pelican crossings had been ruled out as an option because of cost; David wondered about the installation of further – and functioning – speed cameras; Ian advised that LCC was opting for average speed cameras in prioritising the Preston area when installing new equipment and he offered to provide information and a web link for those who are interested in finding out more (shown here as Annex 3).

6.8 Frank pointed out that the double yellow lines adjacent to the school were largely ignored; Ian concurred, adding that the issue was a huge one all along the A682; David said there was no evidence of enforcement.

6.9 Sandra said that “Back Lane” (Goodshaw Lane, as Lewis pointed out) had become a rat-run and needed a reminder sign of the speed limit.

6.10 Bob commended the system applying on Guernsey of “routes tranquilles” where the speed limit was 15 mph and where vehicles had to give way to pedestrians, cyclists and horses; on Goodshaw Lane, intrusion by overgrown hedges forced pedestrians into the road.

6.11 Eric said that when the first estate was built, the boundary walls were constructed on the footpath; David P agreed, adding that the walls were collapsing in places.

6.12 David H recommended trying to deal first with the A682 Burnley Road and it was AGREED that the Secretary should write to Alyson Barnes in her capacity as our County Councillor; ACTION by David H.

7. Any Other Business

7.1 Marker stone: Darryl invited anyone wishing to to take away quantities of quarry dust remaining after in the installation of the marker stone.

7.2 Gib Hill Lane

7.2.1 Andrea was interested in reference at the previous meeting to the gate being nailed shut: Bob responded.

7.2.2 Bob said that locking a gate was illegal unless it was immediately adjacent to a main road; the gate in question had adjacent to it a stepped stile; only with LCC’s explicit permission could this arrangement be allowed.

7.2.3 He had raised the case with David Goode (LCC) who had replied that he was not unfamiliar with the situation which he would take up.

7.2.4 Bob added that he received PROW updates and that, on average, issues took 2 years to resolve; LCC was over-stretched and had to prioritise carefully but the Gib Lane case was a serious one; he had received 17 emails relating to the case.

7.3 Church burial ground

7.3.1 Lewis pointed out that the pathway to the north of the church was slippery and would benefit from a handrail.

7.3.2 Bob said the wall was lying on the path in places; remedy would require a lot of sorting out.

7.4 Commercial Street bridge

7.4.1 David C reminded the meeting that RBC had prohibited heavy vehicles from crossing the bridge and that this had led to homes on the western hillside being supplied with rubbish collection bags which residents had then to deposit adjacent to bridge.

7.4.2 He reported that before Christmas, RBC vehicles had crossed the bridge to visit the remote homesteads.

8. Next Meetings and Close

8.1 20.00 hrs. on Monday, 13 February 2017: Top Club.

8.2 The meeting concluded at 20.46 hrs..

Annex 1 Folly Clough Bridge

Last month Chris asked in AOB about the situation regarding Folly Clough Bridge. I made enquires and decided I would make this the subject of my report to the meeting as it appears it is not straightforward.

At the last meeting Chris asked if there were any developments on the Folly Clough Bridge, given that the parapet had fallen away in places and was now a Health and Safety issue. I contacted Lancashire County Council’s Highways Office over this matter and received the following reply. “Thank you for your enquiry which has been logged and forwarded to the Public Rights of Way Team for investigation. And we have requested that they reply directly to you which should be within 20 working days”.

I do not think this is passing the buck; as far as I am aware the track is unadopted but the lane is the course FP Rawtenstall No 337. Before contacting LCC I did visit the site and took additional photos of the deteriorating fencing which is in place (with the potential and very real danger of there being a serious accident, particularly regarding children’s safety). There is of course a LCC prohibition order on the track advising walkers not to use it – and of course no one takes any notice of it! The notice itself runs out in June of this year and I did ask the question what happens after the notice expiry date.

As members may be aware there are various issues over this bridge – and it may seem peculiar that vehicles including farm machinery can use the track but not walkers. The above notice was placed to cover LCC’s footpath responsibilities as highways have none. LCC do though have responsibility to maintain the footpaths and this includes maintaining bridges over water courses. My view is that there needs to be some dialogue over the situation as it is clearly not satisfactory – walkers continue to use the track and LCC cannot close it because highways have no responsibility for it. I will continue to monitor the situation and I will relay any feedback I get to members.

Annex 2 Loveclough marker stone, update

I would like to start by thanking everyone who took part in what was an important decision that will be part of the landscape for many years to come.

The survey revealed that 117 comments were made on Facebook but 125 choices made – 8 were multiple (usually 2) and 8 mentioned the etching idea but gave no other choice. 18 voted by email or verbally giving a total of 143 choices made.

No 2 came out the clear winner: 57 Facebook and 11 email = 68 total.

No 1: 42 Facebook/ 5 email = 47 total.

No 3: 6

No 4: 3

No 5: 8 Facebook and 2 email = 10 total.

No 6: 1

As number two came out the clear winner the LVRA is applying for additional funding from the Neighbourhood Forum to help meet the cost which is expected to be around a total of £1,500.

Annex 3 Information relayed by Ian Booth



Road casualties to be tackled with average speed cameras



This is a message sent via In the Know – Lancashire. This information has been sent on behalf of Lancashire Constabulary
Message sent by
Engagement Team (Police, Police Staff, Lancashire)

Dear Ian
Eight routes where 13 people have lost their lives in collisions in almost six years (01/01/2011 to 01/10/2016) are being targeted in a bid to cut down on the number of casualties. The routes across Lancashire have seen a total of 406 casualties with 62 people suffering serious or life changing injuries since 2011.
Now the Lancashire Road Safety Partnership has given the go ahead for new average speed enforcement camera systems on the routes, with the hope of reducing the death toll and making the roads safer for all to use.
The routes are (cameras will cover traffic flow in both directions):

  • A565 Southport Road (1.2m) between B5246 at Mere Brow and the Gravel Lane roundabout at Banks.

  • A583 Preston New Road (7.5m) between M55 Junction 3 (Peel Road, Peel Hill), through Kirkham bypass, and Blackpool Road at Preston Old Road, Clifton.

  • A588 Head Dyke Lane, Pilling (2m) between Fold House Caravan Park and Bourbles Lane.

  • A59 Brockholes Brow, Preston (0.5m) between M6 junction 31 and Glenluce Drive.

  • A6 London Road, Preston (0.7m) between Capitol Centre (Winery Lane) and Albyn Street East.

  • A675 in Belmont (8.5m) between M65 junction 3, through Abbey Village and Belmont to Scout Road.
  • A682 Gisburn Road, Pendle (5.2m) between A59 at Gisburn and Whittycroft Avenue (between Barrowford and Blacko).
  • B6232 Grane Road, Haslingden (4.7m) between A56 through Haslingden Grane to A6177 Elton Road junction with Sough Lane.

Alongside Lancashire Constabulary the Partnership, which includes representatives from Lancashire County Council, Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council, Blackpool Council, Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service, Highways England and the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, has decided to adopt the system using average speed cameras as safety and motorist compliance has consistently improved on a variety of road types using the system in other parts of the UK.
The cameras will use number plate recognition technology to detect vehicles and calculate their average speed by measuring the time taken to travel between fixed points of a known distance apart. Average Speed Check signage will be used to inform drivers that they are entering an average speed control zone.
The introduction of the system is intended to positively influence driver behaviour and ensure that motorists comply with the set limits on roads, resulting in a safer environment for all road users.
Installation work will begin today, Monday 9 January on the first route, the A6 London Road, Preston, between the Capitol Centre (Winery Road) and Albyn Street East, with enforcement likely to begin around March. The other routes will have a staggered installation period with all cameras in force by the end of 2017.
Lancashire Constabulary’s Assistant Chief Constable Tim Jacques, Chair of the Lancashire Road Safety Partnership, said: “We don’t want to catch you speeding. Our primary aim is for all drivers to adhere to the safe speed limits on our roads, and these particular roads are proven to be amongst some of our most dangerous.
“It is well researched and documented that speeding can kill, but we know that a combination of education, engineering and enforcement can change behaviours and save lives. This is particularly important where there are recurring problems.
“The Partnership vision, ‘Towards Zero’, is that we work towards preventing all collisions that result in death or serious injury. Using clearly signed average speed cameras will play a vital role as part of this vision.”
Research by the RAC Foundation showed that the numbers of fatal and serious collisions decreases by around a third after average speed cameras are introduced. As part of the LRSP’s average speed project, research will be conducted to review speed data, traffic flow and casualty information on all of the routes.
The proposed routes chosen by the Lancashire Road Safety Partnership have been based on the following criteria:

  • There is a history of collisions and casualties within the routes.
  • Speed surveys indicate that speeding vehicles is an issue.
  • Some of the routes have been identified as needing action around speed and road safety issues, but there aren’t any other realistic or appropriate enforcement options.

There will be sanctions for anyone detected breaching the speed limits, where eligible they will be given the opportunity to attend a speed awareness course to learn about the dangers of speeding, accept a conditional offer of a fixed penalty or for higher speeds the matter may be referred to court.

More information about the average speed cameras can be found on the Partnership website: