Minutes of the LVRA monthly meeting Monday 13th February 2017

David Rhodes

LVRA Meeting: 20.00 hrs. on Monday 13 February 2017 at the Top Club

Present: Karen Hawden (Chair), David Hempsall (Secretary), Darryl Nugent (Treasurer), Bob Nicholas (Footpaths Officer); Barbara Ashworth, Julian Ashworth, Cllr Alyson Barnes, Marian Bent, Ian Booth, Carole Broadbent, Joe Cain, Ann Corkin, David Corkin, John Dawson, Michael Dop, Cllr Dorothy Farrington, David Foxcroft, Steve Glenholmes, Ken Iveson, Jim Lomas, Carole Nevitsky, Alan Nuttall, Lewis Pearson, Frank Pilkington, David Pilling, , Jim Riley, Barbara Walton, Eric Walton, Ann White, Chris Whiting, Christine Wilkins and Georgina Wilkins,

Apologies: Derrick Bartlett-Smith, Diane Ewart-Jones, Marie Hargreaves, Michael Howard, Jean Pilling, Neil Prestwich, David Rhodes (Social Media & Liaison Officer) and Sandra Simpson.

1.        Opening Remarks – Apologies – Thanks

1.1 Karen welcomed those attending.

1.2 Apologies were taken.

2.        Minutes of Last Meeting, 09 January 2017

2.1 Chris proposed and Lewis seconded acceptance of the Minutes.

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

3.        Matters Arising The Glory, update [Planning Inspectorate: APP/B2355/C/16/3158284 + linked case APP/B2355/W/16/3159927]: whilst there was nothing substantive on which to report, a visit by the Planning Inspector was scheduled for 30 March 2017. Pet Crematorium [Planning Inspectorate Decision: APP/Q2371/W/16/3153826]: the meeting noted the Planning Inspector’s decision to reject the proposed re-development. Ken added that the purchasers of a new house in Lawson Street had been wholly unaware of the proposed re-development; it was AGREED that the quality of searches conducted by those undertaking conveyancing was variable. In discussion, Alyson said that purchasers were free to make use of Freedom of Information data accessible via Lancashire County Council; she recommended the posting of Planning Lists on LVRA noticeboards; she thanked LVRA for contributing to the proceedings which had led to the Planning Inspectorate’s decision.
7 2 Commercial Street, update [Planning Inspectorate: APP/B2355/W/16/3163165]: contrary to local rumour, the Planning Inspectorate had not yet published a decision; a judgment was awaited.
4.        Reports
4.1      Chairman
4.1.1 Karen noted items for discussion later in the Agenda – Loveclough’s Identity (Item 6, infra) and the incidence of accidents on the A682 Burnley Road (Item 8, infra).
4.1.2 She had had contact with a family newly arrived in the area who had expressed a particular interest in plans to re-develop Loveclough Park (cf. Item 4.6, infra).
4.2      Secretary
4.2.1 David reiterated the number of items awaiting Planning Inspectorate decisions.
4.2.2 He had been disappointed to be on the receiving end of some unpleasantness over re-establishing Loveclough’s Identity and, specifically, the instances of a change of postcode on the edges of the newly-re-defined community, the necessity for which was not entirely clear.
4.2.3 The Limey Leader was being held over until there was definitive information to broadcast over those instances presently with the Planning Inspectorate.
4.2.4 As the recent closure of Lara look Fabulous in the village demonstrated, there was an ongoing need to “used it or lose it” if amenities were to be retained; he reminded the meeting of Lara Hewitt’s support for the association over a number of years which made the closure of her business especially sad.
4.3      Treasurer/Chairman LVAA
4.3.1 Darryl reported that balances stood at £4,010.83 (including a grant for £500.00 from the Neighbourhood Forum for the marker stone); this left about £1,000 to be found to complete the marker stone project and, given the Fete’s having been washed out in 2016, there was an ongoing need to raise funds.
4.3.2 As regards the allotments association (LVAA), trees were budding and weeds growing, harbingers of spring; woodchip had been donated to help mulch hedgerows and paths; the installation of a community building was the major project to be undertaken in in 2017.
4.4      Footpaths Officer
4.4.1 Bob presented his monthly report which touched on three items: the cat steps, foliage on Goodshaw Lane and Folly Clough bridge.
4.4.2 Bob’s report is shown in full as Annex 1.
4.5      Social Media & Liaison Officer
4.5.1 David’s commitment to theatrical direction precluded his presence.
4.6 LVEG
4.6.1 Steve reminded the meeting of the funding which had been secured.
4.6.2 Having been asked by the Lancashire Environment Fund to re-submit its application, LVEG had been relieved to learn that the grant for £30,000 had indeed been secured.
4.6.3 Plans for the proposed re-development of the park were now out to tender and work had to be completed – in order to fulfil the terms of the grants received – by the end of May 2017.
4.6.4 Steve outlined what had been planned, such as converting the old bowling green into a kick-about area with swings; one tennis court would be retained whilst the other would be turned over to multi-use.
5. Planning application no. 2016/0636 – Erection of 3 no. dwellings with associated landscaping and access works on land west of the Bowling Green Commercial Street Loveclough Rossendale BB4 8QU
5.1 David H reported that officers of the association had met on 24 January 2017 to discuss the application.
5.2 A letter of objection had been submitted, outlining the several concerns.
6. Loveclough’s Identity: Royal Mail consultation
6.1 Marian had been approached by neighbours unhappy with the proposed re-definition of the boundaries of Loveclough as they lived in Crawshawbooth; there was annoyance at the need to change documentation such as driving licences.
6.2 Bob said that extensive research had shown that the historic boundary lay at Middlegate Green; then the Goodshaw estate was built, rent-books for properties on the west side of Goodshaw Avenue were classed as Loveclough; an extensive survey of residents had shown that the vast majority wished to be badged as living in Loveclough.
6.3 In response to a question, Darryl confirmed that in making its application to the Royal Mail, the LVRA had done so in response to residents’ requests as made over a period of more than three years.
6.4 Marian felt that the number of objectors would be too small to reach the 20% threshold required by the Royal Mail’s consultation guidelines and by the letter circulated by Tanya Gourley, the Royal Mail officer dealing with the matter.
6.5 In further discussion, Darryl and Alyson commended simply inserting the community name – be it Crawshawbooth, Goodshaw or Loveclough – as appropriate and leaving the postcode “as is”.
6.6 David C said there was a similar issue touching on Sliven Clod Road; he wondered when Loveclough had been taken out of the postal address; Sliven Clod Road was an oddity in that it had never been a continuous road.
6.7 Contact with an officer at the Royal Mail had suggested that inhabitants on the same road could not have different postcodes; in discussion, this was thought to be misinformation as there were several known instances of where this was the case.
6.8 Alyson thought that a change of postcode was a step too far, given what was being asked for.
6.9 Carole agreed, suggesting that not changing the postcode would in no way inhibit the safe arrival of letters.
6.10 Alan had had experience of going through a similar experience in 2015 when his address had been re-coded; he had had to contact a range of organisations, including his bank and HMRC, to have their databases amended.
6.11 Karen brought discussion to a close; it was AGREED that the Secretary would contact Tanya Gourley to ask why the insertion of a new line in the postal address to include, say, Loveclough, necessitated the wholesale change of postcode; ACTION by the Secretary. [NOTE: Annex 2 shows the response from Tanya Gourley to the Secretary’s subsequent email.]
6.12 Alyson further agreed to investigate the particular position of Sliven Clod Road and its residents.
7. Loveclough marker stone, update
7.1 Bob circulated to the meeting a photographic mock-up of the proposed plaque.
7.2 He reported that the Neighbourhood Forum had awarded a grant of £500.00 to put towards costs; the Treasurer would be applying for additional funding from Alyson’s county fund to assist in purchasing the plaque.
7.3 He confirmed that on receipt of the planners’ consent to what was being proposed, he would be in a position to place an order for the plaque.
7.4 Alyson asked that the mock-up be supplied to Planning Department and suggested that as and when the project was complete, the Mayor be invited to unveil the marker-tone; this was AGREED; ACTION by the Secretary.
7.5 Dorothy commended the collection of such quarry shale as remained.
8. A682 Burnley Road
8.1 David H reported on the meeting of officers on 24 January 2017, noted in the annex which had accompanied the Agenda: there was no obvious solution, given the preponderance of anecdotal evidence; what was needed was a secure evidence base listing accidents and near-misses; there was discussion.
8.2 Ian was concerned that residents using cameras would be open to physical threat.
8.3 Alyson reported that following work on Goodshawfold Road, the pre-existing double yellow lines would be re-instated and extended; given LCC’s financial constraints, proposals for expenditure had to be considered very carefully; a survey on speeding on the A682 Burnley Road had last been undertaken in 2008/2009 with some additional work since; she would raise the possibility of a further, full survey at LCC’s March meeting; she agreed that a complete log of accidents and near-misses was essential.
8.4 Marian commended advertising the idea of logging incidents in the next Limey Leader.
9. Dog fouling
9.1 Ian had asked that the issue be put on the agenda as the problem was worsening: there was a wide-ranging discussion.
9.2 Chris reported having produced and posted 15 signs, all of which had been removed within hours of being installed.
9.3 It was AGREED that offenders should be named and shamed; ACTION by all.
9.4 Darryl supported the notion, retailing how the installation of a camera at his own home had stopped a repeat offender; Alyson supported the principle, recommending residents to let her and the Operations Team know of instances so that fines could be imposed.
10. Bins, refuse and re-cycling, inappropriate use
10.1 David H reported that he had been contacted about third persons using residents’ re-cycling bins to deposit inappropriate items, thereby risking re-cycling operatives’ rejecting the bins.
10.2 It was AGREED that such behaviour was simply anti-social.
11. Any Other Business
11.1 Commercial Street bridge: David C raised once again the anomaly created when a refuse disposal operative had visited outlying homes to the west of the Burnley Road, necessarily crossing the bridge at the bottom of Commercial Street on which LCC had imposed a weight limit; Alyson confirmed that the driver of the vehicle had crossed the bridge in error.
11.2 Fund-raising: Bob said that Fete fatigue having set in, alternative methods of fund-raising had to be explored and that this should figure of the Agenda of the next meeting on March 13; this was AGREED; ACTION by the Secretary.
12. Next Meetings and Close

12.1 20.00 hrs. on Monday, 13 March 2017: Top Club.

12.2 The meeting concluded at 21.17 hrs..

Annex 1 Footpath Officer’s Report
First I would like to thank through the Minutes the actions of a local public spirited person who went to a great deal of trouble and hard work to repair the footpath at the top of the Cat Steps. The work involved removing quite a large amount of the quarry dust from the stone site by trailer; then wheel-barrowing the dust a considerable distance to the job site – an excellent solo effort to repair the path which I am sure will be appreciated by anyone using it.
Some time ago I remarked on the overgrown nature of the foliage at the sides of Goodshaw Lane – and I am pleased to report this has now been cut back. The result is to make the lane at least optically wider with greater visibility for both pedestrians and drivers, which makes the lane safer to a degree.
Since the last meeting the situation regarding Folly Clough Bridge has moved on apace thanks to the intervention of Cllr Alyson Barnes. Lancashire County Council has installed a new and quite substantial plastic fence which should definitely make the bridge safer. I made enquiries via LCC to hopefully get some details about the current situation with the bridge – to which in a nutshell I received a negative response.
This unfortunate bridge would seem to be in a state of limbo. It was made very clear to me that the powers that be simply do not want to know – the answer to my enquiry above coming in three extremely short terse lines. However it does have friends: with the subject of the condition of the bridge’s structure and indeed its long term future having surfaced again Alyson arranged at short notice a meeting at which some of the residents of Folly Clough Terrace and I attended.
The meeting had a wide ranging discussion regarding the various issues surrounding the bridge from legal issues to funding for repairs. Putting aside the complexities of legal issues and funding, the work on restoring the bridge can be broken down into three parts – the stabilising and repairs to the east wall, clearing the substantial amount of young trees growing on the bridge that are undoubtedly adding to the problems, and restoring the bridge parapet.
There is definitely a willingness to see the bridge repaired with local residents willing to do what they can. Various courses of action were agreed upon to get some movement on this problem, and it was agreed that an update meeting would take place in six weeks’ time – and I will update the monthly LVRA meetings as and when information is available.
Bob Nicholas

Annex 2 Response of Tanya Gourley (Royal Mail) to Secretary’s enquiry, 27.02.17 (Item 6.11, supra)

Good Afternoon David
Thanks for your email.  The answer is; the boundary provided split properties sharing the same postcode.  If a locality is added into a postcode then it changes the way all addresses on that code are held.  Therefore as only some of them on a code were in the proposal to add Loveclough others remained with no change to their address.   
I’ll use postcode Goodshaw Avenue BB4 8BY as an example.
Bright Futures Day Nursery
1 – 24 (Consec)       
Goodshaw Avenue
As only 2-24 Evens were in the boundary given for Loveclough then they would need a new postcode so Loveclough can be included in their address details.
Bright Futures Day Nursery and 1-23 Odds are outside Loveclough boundary therefore there is no change to their address and they remain as BB4 8BY.   
With regards to changes,  these show on our website within a few days of the Postcode Address File being amended.   Companies can update monthly, quarterly, six monthly and yearly with our Address Management Products.   I’m happy to provide copies of a confirmation letter to residents if they need them as proof to companies; however we ask they update with the companies they deal with on an as and when basis. Any stationery they already have can be used too.  Also, the delivery office are aware when a property changes postcode and although we ask for a new postcode to be used straight away;  they will endeavour to deliver with both old and new postcodes.
However at the end of the consultation, if you wish, I’m happy to review the properties which would incur the new postcode and see what the overall objections from those particular residents. 
Kind regards
Tanya Gourley
Address Management Unit, Royal Mail, Admiral House, 2 Admiral Way, Doxford International Business Park, SUNDERLAND, SR3 3XW
Telephone: 08456 045060 (Calls cost 5p per minute plus your telephone company’s network access charge.)
Fax: 08456 054433
Email: major_address_changes@royalmail.com