Tesco at Little Lever. Trees at Crossley St under threat?

In order to widen the Access to the Supermarket at Crossley St, Bolton Council have agreed to sell the 'Tree Plot' to the developer. Widening Crossley St, the provision of the mandatory turning head and the as yet unspecified but obviously necessary signage necessarily puts the trees on this plot at risk.

These are not scrubby shrubs as can be seen from the pictures, but mature trees which have had Tree Protection Orders placed on them specifically to prevent development.

I thus submitted a FOI request to Bolton Council in order to discover what the current state of play is.

The FOI request and response so far is as follows:-

From: Paul Richardson 5 July 2012

Dear Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council,

This is a request made under the Freedom of Information Act. As
usual it is precisely worded.

This request is to do with the disposal by Bolton Council of land
at Crossley St Little Lever.

This is the land referred to in the Report to the Executive Member
for Strategy and External Relations dated the 28th March 2012 and
titled ‘ Monitoring of Executive Member Decisions’.

The report states that ‘ …the disposal of the site is currently
being advertised in accordance with Sec123(2A) of the Local
Government Act 1972.’

1) Could you provide me with a copy (in whatever form) of the
advertisement referred to and the names of the newspapers and
journals where it appeared and the dates upon which it appeared.

2) Could you provide me with details of any representations or
objections received as a consequence of the advertisement.

3) Could you provide me with the details of the terms of disposal
of this land to show that maximum benefit has been achieved for the
ratepayers of the Borough.

4) Could you provide me with the current status of the Tree
Preservation Orders which apply to trees on that land.

5) Should those TPO’s have been removed, could you provide me with
details of when, on whose authority and by what process this was
carried out.

6) Should it be the case that the disposal of the land has already
been completed and the TPO’s are still extant, since the TPO’s were
placed on the trees in order to prevent development , an appeal
against that decision would have to be lodged in order for the
TPO’s to be rescinded. Could you provide me with details of any
such appeal if it exists.

(I refer you to your reply to my FOI request Ref RFI 600 dated 24th
March 2011)

Yours faithfully,

Paul Richardson
………………………………………………………………………………………………

Response received from Bolton Council

Dear Mr Richardson,

Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000

In response to your request for information, we have contacted the
relevant department and Bolton Council is happy to supply the following
information.

You requested:

Information relating to the disposal by Bolton Council of land at Crossley
St Little Lever:

1.     Copy of the advertisement referred to and the names of the
newspapers and journals where it appeared and the dates upon which it
appeared.

The Notices were placed in the Bolton Evening News under the Public
Notices section on 29^th February and 7^th March 2012. Copies of the
Notices are attached.

2.     Could you provide me with details of any representations or
objections received as a consequence of the advertisement.

No objections to the intended disposal were received as a consequence of
the Notices.

3.     Could you provide me with the details of the terms of disposal of
this land to show that maximum benefit has been achieved for the
ratepayers of the Borough

Bolton Council has considered this part of your request and feels that the
information you requested is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (“the Act”).  Section 17 of the Act provides that
when refusing a request, Bolton Council must provide a notice which (a)
states that fact, (b) specifies the exemption in question, and (c) states
(if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

In this case, we consider that the exemption under section 43(2) of the
Act applies.  Section 43(2) provides an exemption where the disclosure of
the information under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the
commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding
it).

As the disposal has not yet been completed, we consider that to release
this information would prejudice Bolton Council’s commercial interests,
therefore making the application of section 43(2) appropriate in this
case.

In accordance with the Act, this email constitutes a refusal notice for
this part of your request.

4.     Could you provide me with the current status of the Tree
Preservation Orders which apply to trees on that land

There is a Tree Preservation Order on  Lever Street/Ainsworth Road, Little
Lever, which relates to the land on Crossley Street. The Tree Preservation
Order was confirmed 8th May 2009. The reference number is TPO 2009 DC
23.882.

5.     Should those TPO’s have been removed, could you provide me with
details of when, on whose authority and by what process this was carried
out.

The Tree Preservation Order relating to the land on Crossley Street,
Little lever is still in force.

6.     Should it be the case that the disposal of the land has already
been completed and the TPO’s are still extant, since the TPO’s were placed
on the trees in order to prevent development , an appeal against that
decision would have to be lodged in order for the TPO’s to be rescinded.
Could you provide me with details of any such appeal if it exists.

There were no objections to the Tree Preservation Order received and no
applications have been made to fell or prune the trees.

………………………………………………………………………………………

I have since requested a copy of the TPO

From: Paul Richardson  18 July 2012

Dear Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

To finalise this FOI request could you please in addition to your
reply kindly provide me with a copy of the Tree Preservation Order
you identify relating to this land. ie . The Tree Preservation
Order confirmed 8th May 2009. The reference number is TPO 2009 DC
23.882.

Yours faithfully,

Paul Richardson

Tesco at Little Lever - Public Meeting - Intimidation -2

Following on from the letter in the Bolton News, I have indeed written to the Bolton Council Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer.

This is Mrs Helen Gorman who, in her capacity as Monitoring Officer maintains the standards of conduct of Councillors, Officers and anybody else in their relationships with the Council.

I have asked her to investigate the remarks made by Councillor Mrs Connell to ascertain the truth  of the allegation and find out who felt intimidated and by whom.

I obviously will not post the text of my letter, but I did point out the limited number and categories of people who might be guilty of the alleged intimidation.

Whoever they might be, there are necessarily consequences.

Since Mrs Gorman is not Mr Eastwood, I am hopeful that she will get to the bottom of this and make public the truth of her findings.

I am assured of a response within fourteen days.

Tesco at Little Lever - Public Meeting - Intimidation?

 

 

Public meeting: Who was intimidated and by whom?

Thursday 28th June 2012

 

Might I compliment your reporter Charlotte Dobson on her article last week covering matters discussed at the Little Lever and Darcy Lever Area Forum. Incisive and to the point and yet, with the addition of Mr Magee’s statement, balanced.

There was one episode during this meeting, as yet unreported, which gave me cause for serious concern.

Following my statement to the forum that I had been reliably informed that the public meeting had not taken place in the form requested because Tesco had refused to attend, the chairman stated that this was incorrect.

She further stated that the meeting had not taken place because “some people felt intimidated”.

When asked to clarify who had felt intimidated and by whom, she refused to elaborate.

This is a serious allegation which cannot be allowed to pass.

Relations and communications between electors and elected in whatever place, must be conducted in a civilised and temperate manner. Equally, councillors must be free to conduct their business on our behalf without any hint of undue pressure or intimidation from whatever source.

This does not preclude legitimate challenges to or the holding to account of councillors by their electors, provided it is done in an appropriate and acceptable way.

Since I am 100 per cent confident that all of the people who wanted the public meeting have conducted themselves properly, I am at a loss to think who could have been doing the intimidating.

I am therefore proposing to write to the new Monitoring Officer of the council to ask for an investigation to get to the bottom of this allegation.

No doubt, in due course, she will report her findings either directly or through the area forum.

Paul Richardson Ripon Close Little Lever

Tesco at Little Lever - Mr Magurk's letter to the Bolton News

Councillor connections

Friday 22nd June 2012

 

I have read the article about Tesco in Little Lever, and the letter by Paul Richardson and both are right on the button.

However, what amazes me is nobody has connected the fact that the chairman of the forum, Cllr Maureen Connell, is the wife of Cllr Anthony Connell, chairman of the planning committee.
There must have been conflicts of interest.

When the store is built and the novelty factor has worn off, I just wonder how much notice the likes of both Cllrs Connell will take of the residents of Little Lever over the traffic congestion and rat runs created by their pet project, Tesco.

Or is this all part of Bolton’s plans to gridlock Bolton completely so that they can bring in congestion charging.

Desmond Magurk
Bolton

Tesco at Little Lever - My reply to Simon Pearce

Supermarket application was railroaded through system

Wednesday 20th June 2012

 

I AM indebted to Simon Pearce for broadening out the discussion surrounding the shenanigans of the planning committee and the planning department.

Upon reflection, it is clear that from the very start the planning department was determined that the Tesco application would be approved.

From the gerrymandering of the town centre boundary through the spending of ratepayers money so transport for Greater Manchester could ensure the traffic modelling would produce the desired result — to the downright distortion of the language of planning guidelines — these people were going to get their way.

The applicants, in the meantime, had the benefit of using the same public relations firm which Bolton Council had hired to sweet-talk council house tenants into the housing stock transfer.

None of this could be guaranteed to work without the co-operation of a supine and servile planning committee, which appeared to turn a blind eye to the obvious deficiencies in the application — some of which were put before them by myself in a 50-page dossier — and meekly did their master’s bidding and handed it back to the director.

This is the director who now presides over the stalled grandiose Central Street, Church Wharf, Merchants Quarter and Westbrook Gateway projects, all of which, on the admission of the leader and the chief executive, are going nowhere anytime soon. It is understandable that he is desperate to get anything developed or regenerated.

He can, of course, point to Bolton One (or Waterplace Two as I prefer to call it) and frequently does, but this is a £31m PFI project which the ratepayers will be paying through the nose for years from now.

The lack of pivate investment in the town is sad, but understandable in the present climate, but it doesn’t justify railroading another supermarket application through the system without assessing the effects on the community and existing businesses where it is to be located.

The Tesco tail has wagged the planning department dog and then the planning department tail has wagged the planning committee dog — and it’s all wrong.

Paul Richardson
Ripon Close
Little Lever

Tesco at Little Lever - The Area Forum row - Bolton News Article

 

Tesco talks ‘were not good enough’

Wednesday 20th June 2012

 

RESIDENTS claim a public consultation into plans to build a new Tesco supermarket in  Little Lever was “not good enough”.

The proposals, which were given the go ahead last month, will see a new store built on the former Pennine Pets site.

But people opposed to the development complained about the council’s lack of public consultation at the Little Lever area forum
.
Villagers said they felt the plans had been “a done deal from the start”.

Tesco held a public consultation meeting last July, yet residents claimed it did not sufficiently address the issue of road access to the new site.

The proposed road alterations include making Lever Street one-way, widening Ainsworth Road and adding a puffin crossing replacing Church Street’s zebra crossing.

On resident, Paul Richardson, said: “I think a public meeting regarding traffic is still very much needed.
“What we got was a Tesco-organised public relations meeting and we feel the process of democracy has been breached.”

People at the area forum claimed Bolton Council’s highways department should have held a meeting with residents to discuss the supermarket’s impact on traffic congestion and access roads in the village.

Alwynne Cartmell, another Little Lever resident, said: “It’s like offering someone an operation without going to the doctors.”

Mr Richardson added: “I was accused of being anti-Tesco. I'm not.

“I just don't want the dominant store in the centre closed and empty and the footfall sucked out of the village centre.”

Cllr Maureen Connell, chairman of the forum, and Cllr Anthony Connell, argued residents had the opportunity to voice their opinions at the public consultation last May.

Tesco spokesman, Matthew Magee, said: “This is statutory consultation done by the council.

“We go over and above what is required by planning law and we are proud of the consultation we have carried out which showed strong support for the new store.

“We held a specific consultation event on traffic and we work hard to ensure traffic is kept flowing around the area.

“The plan was unanimously approved by Bolton Council.”

Bolton Council - Change of Governance and Bye Bye Alan Eastwood

Change that slipped under radar

Wednesday 13th June 2012 

Amidst all the excitement about the arrival of the Olympic Torch, Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee and the anticipation of the football thing — followed by the Olympics, perhaps it is understandable that the recent change of governance of Bolton Council  has slipped through under the radar. 

It now appears that we have a Cabinet comprising three Executive Cabinet Members and 11 others with assorted portfolios. 

Only the three Executive Members are allowed to make legal decisions. 

All the remaining 46 elected representatives of the good burghers of Bolton are mere Non-executive Councillors. 

I am unsure whether this change of governance — the third, or is it fourth, in 12 years — is heading in the direction of being more democratic or towards the style of some of the more discredited regimes in other parts of the world. 

Perhaps in another 12 months a further change will concentrate all power in the hands of one person.

Oh no! That would be too much like an elected Mayor — albeit not directly elected. 

At least we have the benefit that the lamented loss of Mr Eastwood — The Director of the Chief Executive’s Office, Head of Legal Services, Monitoring Officer and Information Safety Officer, etc — has resulted in the re-instatement of the post of Borough Solicitor at a much reduced cost. 

All we need now is for the Chief Executive to be retitled the Town Clerk and the return of the Watch Committee and perhaps we’ll start getting somewhere. Thank God we’ve lost that “Cleaner, Greener, Safer” nonsense. 

Paul Richardson

Ripon Close

Little Lever

Bolton Planning Department - Letter from Simon Pearce

 

Town’s planners are blatantly pro-developer at all costs

Wednesday 13th June 2012

 

IN his recent letter, Mr Richardson berated the local planning system for the amateur handling and especially the lack of an impact assessment of the new Tesco store in Little Lever.

He would be even more annoyed to learn about Planning Policy Statement 4, published in late December 2009, which includes the clear direction in Policy EC13.1.b: “When assessing planning applications affecting shops, etc, in local centres and villages, local planning authorities should refuse planning applications which fail to protect existing facilities which provide for people’s day-to-day needs.” Existing shop viability is deemed essential.

I have significant experience of planning officer reports that are both superficial in content and depth of analysis, misleading as to facts and one-sided. I’m afraid that Tesco objectors like Mr Richardson were fighting with both hands tied firmly behind their backs.

Complete reform of the planning decision making system is the only way forward with representation on committees required beyond local politicians.

It has to be said, in fairness, that in late March this year, the new relaxed national planning regulations were introduced by the government of millionaires and developers are now pushing against an open door.

That being said, many have come to experience Bolton’s planning system as being blatantly pro-developer at all costs, whether it be ruining the remaining green belt in this area, with ugly and insubstantial tin and plastic-style urban buildings that scar the green belt landscape; or deciding on potentially wrecking the retail centre of Little Lever, as hundreds argued.

Next up is whether to allow the tranquility of Harwood district to be further harmed by allowing hundreds of noisy and heavy quarry lorry traffic weekly trips to continue for another decade or more.

Bolton’s planning committee and its officers discredit themselves when they turn a blind eye to their own policies with their pro-developer agenda.

Simon Pearce
Bromley Cross Bolton

Tesco at Little Lever - Bolton News - My response to the Decision

I witnessed travesty that was the decision to approve Tesco scheme

Friday 1st June 2012 

THERE is something rotten at the core of Bolton which has resulted, in the view of many, to the town having been beggared. 

I couldn’t quite put my finger on what could be part of the cause until I took part last Thursday in the travesty purported to be the planning committee scrutiny of the Tesco plan for Little Lever.

As one of only two objectors present and the only one to address the committee, I was taken aback by the planning officer’s presentation of the application to the extent that I wondered if we were discussing the same thing.

One of our ward councillors happens to be the chairman of the committee, but where were the other two? The most important issue facing the village in years and no sign of them. 

The Tesco man did his PR bit and I did my two-minute speech, principally about the lack of any assessment of the impact of the proposal on the viability and vitality of the Village Centre. 

This most important matter, which the members should have been curious about in any event, was completely ignored. 

Then came the scandalous remark from the chairman which you printed in your paper — “Some people (I assume he meant me) seem to have a downer on this particular supermarket chain and wouldn’t have a problem with a different one, which to me seems bizarre.” 

I’m not anti-Tesco. I shop in Tesco nearly every day. My principal problem is that I don’t want the Tesco Metro to move with the loss of footfall at the centre of the village. 

But if, in the considered opinion of the chairman and ward councillor, objections and objectors should be dismissed in this insulting manner, then one might be led to question his fitness to hold either position.

Cllr Peel compared the proposal with Sainsbury’s in Westhoughton. The trouble is that Sainsbury’s didn’t close the dominant store in Westhoughton centre and move it outside. 

Perhaps the degree of flippancy of the committee’s deliberations was reinforced when we were honoured with the presence of the new Mayor — in jeans, trainers and a football shirt. 

So, the committee abdicated their responsibility of scrutiny and agreed to shift the final decision onto the shoulders of the director. A wise move perhaps, in view of the implied threat from Asda’s lawyers of a legal challenge. I’m not sure the planning department had informed the councillors of this. I did, but once again it was ignored. Never mind, in that event the ratepayers will pick up the bill. 

I have no complaint over Tesco’s conduct with this application. They put a gloss on it which any applicant would do and there were no dirty tricks. 

But if the above is an example of how planning applications are treated and decisions made then it’s hardly surprising that the town is in the mess it is. 

As for the quality of representation of their electors by the ward councillors in Little Lever, nothing further needs to be said. 

Paul Richardson 

Ripon Close

Little Lever