Letters update - Bolton is an Asylum Dispersal Centre - 6th July 2013

Dear Sir,

I, and no doubt others, was taken aback to discover that Bolton is designated an ‘Asylum Dispersal Area’. Apparently the Council signed up to this scheme as far back as 2004.

Putting aside the no doubt charitable motives behind this decision, it does appear to me to be strange in view of the much publicized degree of deprivation that existed in the Borough at that time – a situation which apparently still remains.

It is clear to me that this designation refers to Asylum Seekers who, by the very definition, are not allowed to work or contribute to the local economy in any way.

Following your article, many of the published remarks seem to assume that the report refers to immigration in general and their defensive remarks reflect this.

Sean Harriss remarks on the co-ordinated efforts made to ensure that new communities integrate successfully. I don’t think that integration is the problem. I think the problem is money.

My point is that there are necessarily additional cost implications for Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Education, Translation services and NHS provision etc just at a time when financial constraints mean that these areas just cannot afford it.

Perhaps it is time for the Council to ‘join out’ of this scheme in order to alleviate these additional and unnecessary pressures and let other richer and less deprived areas take our place.

Paul Richardson

Ripon Close

Little Lever.

Tesco at Little Lever. My reply to Bolton News article (see below)

Dear Sir,

Following an investigation by your reporter, Saiqa Chaudhari, into whether or not the proposed Tesco development at Little Lever was amongst the 100 plus developments axed or put on hold by that company, apparently they have gone to great lengths to assure us that this is not the case.

After all the hoo-ha surrounding the application and the bending over backwards of the Council to accommodate them, I am tempted to say ‘Well, they would say that wouldn’t they’

The truth of the matter is that thirteen months after the Planning Committee passed the buck over to the Director and nine months after he made the final decision to approve the application, not one sod has been turned nor one brick laid.

Further to this, as of today’s date and according to the Land Registry, the developer hasn’t even bought the land. Then again, if you were not intending to proceed, you wouldn’t shell out some £2m for nothing.

Another interesting point concerns the Sec 106 agreement between the Council, the landowners and the developer. Normally this would refer to an amount of money freely contributed to the local community by the developers to mitigate any negative effects of the development.

This had been mooted for this £5m development to be in the region of £20,000 to £30,000.

Unfortunately no specific sum is mentioned in the Sec 106 agreement.

If the Council had been a little less tardy in introducing the new Community Infrastructure Levy which broadly replaces Sec 106 monies, then Tesco would have been stuck with a Levy of some £233,000.  Lucky escape !.

Given, in my view, that the only benefit of this proposal would be to clean up the site, if this does not proceed in the near future, then the residents are stuck with this eyesore for who knows how long.

As some football commentator once said ‘It’s not over till it’s over’

Paul Richardson

Ripon Close

Little Lever

Keith Davies, Bolton Council's regeneration boss gets honorary degree

From the Bolton News:-


ONE of the key players in driving Bolton forward has been honoured by the University of Bolton. 

Keith Davies, Bolton Council's Director of Development and Regeneration, was awarded an Honorary Master for his contribution to the town of Bolton.

Mr Davies said: “I feel very proud and honoured that my work in Bolton has been recognised in this way."

Here is a picture of Mr Davies feeling very proud and honoured

 

..............................................................................................................................................................

Now let's look at a few examples of the Development and Regeneration around the town that Mr Davies has presided over and which demonstrates how he is " driving Bolton forward"

 Well done Mr Davies!

Perhaps a Knighthood in the New Year's Honours is overdue.


The last picture sums it all up. Bury Council's Advert on the side wall of the Hen & Chicks pub on Deansgate.

 

 

Tesco at Little Lever - Will they, Won't they ???

 

Tesco 'committed' to building new supermarket in Little Lever

Wednesday 19th June 2013

 

Supermarket giant Tesco has dismissed rumours that plans to build a new store in Little Lever have been scrapped.

Villagers attending Monday’s Little Lever area forum said they understood that plans to develop a supermarket on the on the site of the former Pennine Pets Factory, on the corner of Lever Street and Crossley Street, had been axed.

Planning bosses granted the supermarket permission to build a 2,778sqm store just over a year ago — but work has still not started on the complex.

This week, Tesco, responding to the rumours, said they would open a new supermarket in the village.

A Tesco spokesman said: "We are committed to bringing a new and improved store to Little Lever to replace our existing Metro.”

Plans for a new Tesco were first unveiled n May 2011 and would replace the existing Tesco Metro in Market Street.

The proposals split the community with those for and against staging campaigns — and public meetings were also called.

The plans won the backing of Bolton Council, which gave Tesco permission to build the shop.

Supermarket bosses said the new store would incorporate green features including a timber frame, rainwater harvesting, and wind catchers.

It will have car parking, a service yard and landscaping, and there will also be road alterations to accommodate the increase in traffic and ease congestion.

Changes include making Lever Street one-way, widening Ainsworth Road and adding a puffin crossing, replacing Church Street’s zebra crossing with another puffin crossing, relocating the bus stops in Ainsworth Road and Market Street, and adding traffic-calming measures to Ainsworth Road and Victory Road

The existing Tesco Express, in Market Street, will close and its 49 staff will be moved to the new shop, while an extra 100 new jobs would be created.

Tesco said the new plans would regenerate a derelict site and provide a modern shopping environment for customers.

The Tesco spokesman added: “As soon as the timescale becomes clear we will update the community on our plans."

Work has to be started within three years of the plans being given permission.

Tesco at Little Lever - They're still not 'havin' it !!

Dear Mr Richardson

Thank you for your letter. I have discussed your further points with the Borough Solicitor and have concluded that there is no reason for me to change the Council's position on the matter.

I understand that you take a different view on the issue and that you intend to pursue your complaint with the LGO.

Regards

Sean Harriss Chief Executive

Tesco at Little Lever. My reply to Sean Harriss

DER0679272 – Your response to my Appeal

Dear Mr Harriss,

Thank you for your consideration of my appeal and the detail of your reply.

I must comment before proceeding in a different direction.

I am extremely surprised that the legal department seems to have suggested to you that so long as all the owners have been notified before the application reaches a point of decision, be it by the Planning Committee or in this case eventually the Director, then everything complies with procedures and the law – thus implying that it doesn’t really matter whether the original Certificate is accurate or not. This is an obvious nonsense.

The legal case hinges on the deficiency of the Certificate B submitted with the application.

That Certificate was clearly deficient the day it was submitted and is deficient to this day.

Had this deficiency remained unknown to the Council then there could be no maladministration by them.

However that deficiency did become known to the Council.

The Court of Appeal ruling in the case of Main v Swansea City Council was precisely about the consequences of deficiencies in the original Certificate but that ruling (apart from dealing with the specific circumstances of that case) also laid out a general interpretation of the consequences of deficiencies.

On careful reading, it is clear that the degree of deficiency in an original Certificate can or may ‘go to the jurisdiction’ – ie the authority of the LA to consider the application at all.

The judgment as to whether it does or not in any specific case can only be made by a Court.

So, if an LA becomes aware of deficiencies, they cannot know whether or not they have jurisdiction and thus cannot logically proceed.

That’s it – top and bottom – front and back.

I don’t want to labour the point, but it may well be that your legal department might want another think about this.

Failing this, I must advise you that I need to proceed to the Local Government Ombudsman for their view.

Yours respectfully

Paul Richardson

Tesco at Little Lever. Reply from the Chief Executive to my Appeal.

Dear Mr Richardson

Appeal against Decision.

I write further to your e-mail of 5^th April regarding your complaint about the planning application 86999/11 and your dissatisfaction with the response provided by Tim Hill, Chief Housing and Planning Officer.

Please accept my apologies for the additional time required to complete the investigation into this matter. I have now considered your appeal and summarise the points you raised together with my conclusions below.

As you submitted the complaint to Helen Gorman as Monitoring Officer and as it concerned the interpretation of the law, you expected that it would be considered by her rather than by Tim Hill as head of the department you were complaining about.

Under the Council’s formal complaint5s procedure, initial complaints are investigated by an officer within the service who has not been previously involved with the matter. If the matter required an interpretation of the law, as in this case, then advice would be provided to the investigating officer by one of the Council’s lawyers.

Therefore, as Mr Hill is the Chief Officer with responsibility for planning, I find it was appropriate that he investigated at this stage.

You considered that the actions of officers between 23^rd January and early February were at variance with required procedures and the law. You consider that as a result the granted planning permission could have been quashed.

Mr Hill clearly states that he agrees with your timetable of events but that he does not consider that there has been a failure to follow the required procedures or the law.

I appreciate that you disagree and that you hold a different interpretation; you make reference to guidance issued by North Somerset County Council which supports your view and suggest that Bolton Council has not issued similar guidance demonstrates a careless approach.

While I accept that you have a view as to why North Somerset issued the guidance and consider that they were correct to do so, as you have been previously advised, the document to which you refer is not a determination of the law. It is merely guidance based on an interpretation of the law and was not given any weight when referred to in a recent court case.

With regards to your reference to the possibility of the granted permission being quashed, I note that you quote a paragraph extracted from an article in the Law Society Gazette from Sept 1987. This refers to instances where an application is granted without an owner being notified suggesting that a prompt application by that owner to have that permission quashed would be successful.  However reference to the timetable set out in your initial complaint clearly demonstrates that this was not the case here and that all owners had been notified before the application to Planning Committee and therefore prior to permission being granted.

Having fully reviewed the matter and based on advice from the Council’s legal service, I must advise you that I do not agree with your interpretation of what the law requires but uphold the view set out in Mr Hill’s original response. As such, I can find no evidence that officers acted incorrectly and I can find no evidence of maladministration. I do not propose to take any further action therefore.

I trust this clarifies the matter, however, if you are not satisfied with my decision, you may contact the Local Government Ombudsman  ……….. (Phone No, Address  etc)

Yours sincerely

Sean Harriss

Chief Executive.