Minutes of the Association Meeting: 20.00 hrs. on Monday, 8 April 2019 at the Top Club
Present: Karen Hawden (Chair), David Hempsall (Secretary), Darryl Nugent (Treasurer), Bob Nicholas (Footpaths Officer), David Rhodes (Social Media & Liaison Officer); Cllr Alyson Barnes, Richard Ball, Ian Booth, Colin Broadbent, Ann Corkin, David Corkin, Max Derbyshire, Cllr David Foxcroft, Roger Fulton, Barbara Gerken, Stephen Glenholmes, Marie Hargreaves, Michael Howard, Ken Iveson, Lewis Pearson, David Pilling, Jean Pilling, Eric Walton and Ann White.
Apologies: Cllr Dorothy Farrington, Peter Holt and Chris Whiting.
1. Opening Remarks – Apologies – Thanks
1.1 Karen welcomed those attending.
1.2 Apologies were taken.
2. Minutes of previous meeting, 08 March 2019
2.1 Lewis proposed and Barbara seconded acceptance of the Minutes: these were taken as a true record nem. con.
3. Matters Arising
32.42.6 Colebrand, update
184.108.40.206 Alyson said that on the day of her proposed meeting, no one had attended, the weather had been dreadful and the Limey Water was in full spate; so nothing untoward could be observed.
220.127.116.11 Roger regularly walked the area, observing that 2/3 of the buildings were of single, breeze-block construction; being insubstantial, the buildings posed a risk, not least to youngsters frequenting the site; Alyson concurred.
4.2.3 RBC’s broadcasting of information
18.104.22.168 David reported Anne Storah’s contacting him, disseminating information about RBC’s plans having been sent to the Planning Inspectorate; the information would be attached to the Minutes; seeAnnex 1, infra)..
22.214.171.124 David was sure that this welcome improvement was attributable to Alyson’s taking forward the mood of the previous meeting.
5 100 Club, update
5.1 Bob reported the acquisition of 100 gaming balls for draw purposes.
5.2 To date, only one number – 31 – had been assigned.
5.3 Attendees were encouraged to subscribe.
7.2 Refuse collections
7.2.1 David C said no information about collections had been received by those living in housing on the western hillside.
7.2.2 Alyson said that she had asked for the information leaflet to be delivered.
7.2.3 David reiterated that those residents so affected had not been notified of a due collection day.
7.2.4 David raised the matter of the Commercial Street bridge: an independent survey of the bridge, organised by Michael Dop, suggested that the structure was capable of bearing 19 tonnes, contrary to reports received apparently emanating from LCC: this would permit refuse collection vehicles to cross the bridge.
7.2.5 Alyson said she would pursue the matter further.
7.2.6 David felt that council tax payers on the west side of the bridge were not being properly supported; he reminded the meeting that repairs to the bridge – the responsibility of Penny Lodge residents under the terms of their leases – could be undertaken quite cheaply.
7.2.7 Alyson said that the status of the bridge was not a matter for RBC; RBC was bound to accept the report of its independent surveyor; she would follow up on the information David had supplied.
7.2.8 As the matter was also one affecting LCC, David F said he too would follow the matter up.
4.1.1 Karen had received further reports of vehicles exceeding the speed limit on Hamer Avenue, endangering pedestrians.
4.1.2 As regards contributions required of developers by RBC, she wondered is funds could be directed towards improving the Molly Ring facilities.
4.2.1 David H again expressed appreciation of Alyson’s role in getting RBC – via Anne Storah – to update residents about the status of RBC’s evolving strategic plan; the relevant link would be appended to the Minutes.
4.2.2 David had acted on concerns relayed by Ken and David P about a proposed development on Goodshaw Lane.
4.2.3 At the behest of officers, he had written to the Rossendale Free Press: the letter had been carried (late) ten days previously, together with a covering article.
4.2.4 Officers had not felt reassured by the suggestion that the association would be able to put its view when RBC’s plans were subject to scrutiny by the appointed Planning Inspector, so a letter had been sent to the Planning Inspectorate asking that the association be permitted to make input to the scrutiny whenever it might occur.
4.3 Treasurer/Chairman LVAA
4.3.1 Darryl reported £3,970.49 at bank and £40.19 in loose cash.
4.3.2 A separate account had been set up for the 100 Club.
4.3.3 On the allotments, the season was now under way; flagging for the community building was being laid down and, all being well, the building would be in place by the end of the season.
4.4 Footpaths Officer
4.4.1 Bob reported a quiet month.
4.4.2 He had enquired of LCC about implementing FP 384; the response suggested that LCC’s timeframe was long.
4.5 Social Media & Liaison Officer
4.5.1 David R reported 762 followers on Facebook.
5. Commercial Street development, update
5.1 David H had received a number of comments about RBC’s plans but none had been helpful in moving discussion forward.
6. Development “creep”
6.1Marie, Ken and David P outlined the concern for development “creep” on Goodshaw Lane (cf. Item 4.2.2, supra).
6.2 Roger said his understanding was that development was proposed for the former quarry area.
6.3 Alyson confirmed that one long-standing planning application had not been acted upon; one application to the rear of the site had twice been refused.
6.4 Lewis pointed out that the building variously known as the salt or toll house had been constructed in 1685.
7. Highways issues
7.1 Max had contacted the Secretary about a variety of issues affecting the area designated H6 in RBC’s draft strategic plan.
7.2 He was especially concerned by the existing hazard of sight lines around a blind corner which would be compounded by further development.
7.3 A colleague with a planning background had advised that the light and safety issues raised by those resident in H6 had validity vis-à-vis planning.
7.4 Max had other, wider concerns about traffic movement on the A682 Burnley Road; responding to LCC, Max had issued a request for records of incidents and for witness statements to build up a case.
7.5 Alyson felt it appropriate that Max channel his concerns via the association, reminding the meeting that from the M66 down – cities aside – Rossendale was the most congested area in the country.
7.6 She reiterated that with both major political parties committed to building, RBC had repeated the difficulties in applying an inflexible national framework on our area with its complex topography; what was needed was flexibility which allows some local determination of issues; it was because of difficulties with the “Bacup corridor” that planners had been forced to look to areas like Lovelough to develop.
7.7 In response to Max’s point about traffic flows, David F said that he had made several representations to LCC; whilst personally sympathetic, the evidential base available to Highways did not achieve the threshold required to take the sort of remedial action which residents felt was necessary; when set against other areas in Rossendale and in Lancashire, the case for the A682 Burnley Road was weak and did not warrant LCC’s further intervention.
7.8 In response to Max’s suggestion that any development needed to be sympathetic to the existing environment, Alyson agreed and urged residents – via the association to major on this consideration in any future consultation.
7.9 David P raised the poor state of the pedestrian crossing in the village; David F said that he had already raised with LCC repainting it and yellow-lining.
8. Limey Leader
8.1 David H outlined plans for the next issue; as ever, achieving either an 8- or 12-page issue was difficult and he was anxious to avoid padding.
8.2 He would contact Alyson and David during the week to seek their regular contributions which, he said, were always appreciated.
9. Any Other Business
9.1 Community Association: Alyson advised of a meeting at the Community Centre the following evening – 16.30 hrs on Tuesday, 9 April – at which opportunities for volunteering would be a major issue; the centre was thriving and busy, so even more volunteers would be required.
9.2 St John’s: Richard enquired after progress; David H reminded the meeting of the background and said his information from Valley Heritage was that the development post was being re-advertised; Ken commented on yellow paint which had appeared outside the church in recent times, wondering whether or not this was graffiti; Alyson said that the broken culvert to the rear of the building had resulted in flooding to the road; a neighbour had made great play with the defects being attributable to the Church Commissioners; LCC had enforcement powers which could be applied; Lewis said volunteers had dug out the culvert in 1966 in response to a bad flood in 1964; it was thought that this might have contributed to the recent instance of flooding.
9.3 Goodshaw Lane: Eric remarked on the recurrence of overhanging growth; David F said he would examine the issue when out on his regular run.
10. Next Meetings and Close
10.1 20.00 hrs. on Monday13 May 2019 at the Top Club.
10.2 Thereafter the now usual pattern of utilising the 2ndMonday of each month will continue, so that subsequent meetings in 2019 are expected to be held as follows: 10 June; 8 July; 12 August; 9 September; 14 October; 11 November (including AGM); 9 December.
10.3 The meeting concluded at 20.41 hrs.
Annex 1 Email from Anne Storah, 26 March 2019
Dear Sir / Madam,
The Rossendale Local Plan 2019 – 2034 was submitted for examination to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on 25th March 2019.
An independent Planning Inspector will be appointed to examine the Local Plan.
The documents that were submitted are currently being uploaded to the Council’s website and will be available to view soon atwww.rossendale.gov.uk/localplan.
If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact the Forward Planning Team.
Principal Planner (Forward Planning)
Rossendale Borough Council
470 total views, 1 views today