Ribble Barrage and Floodplain Building Developments Take 'Backward Step' - Has The Ribble Been Saved?

BREAKING NEWS... RIBBLE BARRAGE GOES BACK TO DRAWING BOARD!!

The Lancashire Evening Post are reporting today that Preston City Council Chief Executive Jim Carr has stated that the Ribble barrage and the 'plans to redevelop an area of the river in the city and neighbouring South Ribble' have 'gone back to the drawing board'.


you can click on the picture to read the LEP article in full...

The LEP report that whilst 'plans to solve the blue-green algae problem and fix aging gates at Preston Dock will press ahead', Mr. Carr has stated that:

"The riverside element has taken a step back from where we were (before the local elections earlier this year) because of the political changes here and in South Ribble".

Mr Carr continued:

"What we are now relying on is discussing this between the leaders to see what is acceptable to them. Much of the development is in South Ribble and now it is an issue of whether it wants to progress this".


Luckily for the River Ribble, our environment, and our communities, it seems that not only the Labour Councillors in Preston are opposing the barrage and building development schemes - such as Jack Davenport, Bhikhu Patel, and John Swindells (see below for an excellent letter by Cllr Swindells) - but South Ribble Council are also listening to the evidence we have researched and made publicly available, and to the serious concerns raised by South Ribble residents, and seem to have forced a halt to the project.

The new political make-up in South Ribble occurred largely as a result of South Ribblers' concerns about Preston's plans for the Penwortham side of the river - and the successful South Ribble Conservatives campaigned about local concerns regarding Preston's plans for South Ribble - particularly the Riverworks plans for building a huge new urban conurbation on the Penwortham Green Belt and floodplain.

We are extremely pleased that our tireless research, and our innovative blogging and campaigning techniques to let the public know about the real impacts of what a barrage and building developments would mean for our River, environment, Green Belt, floodplains, riverbanks, allotments, sports pitches, and communities, have encouraged Councillors and Council Officials to start to listen, and begin to think about making informed decisions and take the only logical step of opposing the barrage and building development schemes.

Our hope now is that common sense prevails and the barrage and riverside building developments will be consigned from the drawing board to it's rightful place in the dustbin.

Mr Carr's statement will not be anywhere near clear enough for most Preston residents, especially those living in areas that would face an increased flood risk if the barrage and floodplain housing were built, and those who care deeply about the Ribble environment - the council must state absolutely whether the barrage and the associated housing plans are off the council agenda for good, or whether they will later be drawn back out of their coffin like a vampire in the absence of the clear sunlight of public attention, which has been focussed by the Save The Ribble campaign onto this dangerously stupid, irresponsible and highly unpopular project.

We also have major concerns that the Vision Board has still not abandoned it's plans to turn the Southern bank of the Ribble into a suburban extension of 'Greater Preston', there is no doubt that greedy developers have their eyes on this land, and that they still have strong influence over the future of our area.

According to the LEP, Mr Carr also said that what the Governments decides regarding 'targets for new homes' in the area 'would also guide the future of the riverside plans, which centre around new housing overlooking a marina created by the barrage'.

But surely targets for new homes don't specify that these need to be built on the banks of the river or on the Green Belt and floodplains?!!


Any new housebuilding in either Preston or South Ribble needs to avoid building in areas at high risk of flooding - as the Environment Agency advise. Otherwise the new houses and our existing homes will be at even greater risk of flooding, and our beautiful riverside areas, our football pitches and allotments, would be lost beneath tonnes of concrete, ruining their precious contribution to our environment as well as increasing the flood risk to our homes!!

South Ribble and Preston Councils must give a clear guarantee to the people that the greenbelt and floodplain land by the Ribble is sacrosanct, and will be kept as a beautiful green and natural area for the public to enjoy forever.

Also today, the LEP have published an excellent letter from Cllr John Swindells in which he states:

"Until May I was Preston City Council's cabinet member for environment and sustainability. During my term I discussed the Ribble barrage with many groups and organisations including the RSPB, Environment Agency, the Anglers Conservation Association etc. All these organisations were united in their total opposition to the barrage. In fact I never spoke to any organisation who voiced their support for the barrage."


you can click on the letter to read it in full...

Councillor Swindells continues:

"There followed the LEP survey where an overwhelming number of Prestonians were against the scheme.

I also attended conferences in Cardiff where I discussed the Cardiff Bay scheme. I discovered that the scheme had an original estimate of £40m but eventually cost £200m and now needs £20m per year spent on it to mitigate the environmental impact it has had.
Far from the saviour of Cardiff it has proved to be a millstone around the city's neck".

As far as the implications for the River Ribble are concerned, John Swindells continues:

"This year much of the flooding in England has been caused by land drains not being able to take the rainfall. The Ribble's land drains empty at low water, these drains will be permanently under water if the barrage is built. To remedy this the cost of new drains can only make the scheme uneconomic.

"With this floodtide of opposition and evidence I am staggered that the Vision Board continues to favour a feasibility study.

"Much of the Riverworks scheme has a lot going for it but the barrage would destroy a unique environment and would put Preston at severe risk of flooding".


In his letter Councillor Swindells raises a number of serious issues - not least the spectre of Preston Vision Board...

Whilst Preston Council have been forced to slow down on the barrage by having to listen to South Ribble's opinions on the issues, to whom are Preston Vision Board accountable...?

We watch and we wait, and meanwhile the Ribble continues to flow...

You can contact us at savetheribble@tiscali.co.uk

Preston Councillors Denounce City's 'Three Wise Monkeys' Approach To Flood Risk

Click here to enlarge

Riversway's Labour Councillors, Jack Davenport, Linda Crompton and Bhikhu Patel have been distributing a hard-hitting leaflet around the ward recently, denouncing the failure of the City Council to debate the flood risk posed by Broadgate's old and dilapidated flood defences and by the inadequate and poorly maintained storm drainage in the area.

Jack Bavenport is quoted as saying " This really shows the contempt that the Tories and Lib Dems have for the people of this City. Serious concerns were raised about the drainage system in Hull, and we have had flooding in Riversway this year for similar reasons. It seems that the interests of the people of this City take second place to the interests of private business and faceless bodies like the Preston Vision Board"

The leaflet uses a picture of recent flooding in Middleforth, taken from original material published on the 'Save The Ribble' Blog - Hey Labour Party - we don't mind people using quotes and photographs from this blog, providing they are being used to further the interests of our river and the people who live nearby - but next time please be polite enough to credit the source of your photo - The Save The Ribble Campaign!

You can read 'Save The Ribble's' coverage of the Council's decision not to debate flood risk here

You can read 'Save The Ribble's' investigation of the state of Preston's flood defences here.

Local Councillor's Concerns About Democratic Accountability of Vision Board Continue...

Preston Riversway Councillor, Jack Davenport, has raised further concerns about the recent proposals to restructure Preston Vision Board, claiming the reorganisation 'will do little to encourage the idea that there will be more democratic involvement'.


You can click on the letter to enlarge it...

In his letter, sent to the Lancashire Evening Post this week, Jack Davenport sets out his concerns that:

'The proposals outlined seem to make a move towards greater private sector control, with the council being reduced to a mere consultative role. They will weaken the already poor "partnership" and undermine the public's faith in democratic representation'.

Further, Councillor Davenport is concerned that 'developments in Preston' should be 'guided by public, not private sector need', arguing that 'Only the council, as a democratically representative body, has the authority to make that judgment', and pointing out that this authority is granted 'not by private business or interest, but by the people of this city'.

Councillor Davenport concludes his letter by arguing that 'Reorganisation of the Vision Board should involve major reform, accountability and control so that if the council says "jump", the Vision Board asks "how high?".'


We wholeheartedly share Jack Davenport's concerns on this issue, particularly in view of the Chairman of the Vision Board Malcolm McVicar's comments made last week in response to the proposed reorganisation of the Vision Board to include the Leaders of Preston and South Ribble councils that:

"Having council leaders on board is a good thing" but "It's my responsibility as chairman to make sure it doesn't slow the process" !!!


Whilst we agree with the moves to make Preston Vision Board more democratically accountable, which were kick-started by Councillor Bhikhu Patel earlier this summer, the concerns raised by Jack Davenport are only half the story:

Local residents are equally concerned about the Vision currently being pursued by Preston City Council itself, as there appears to be equal enthusiasm for the Ribble barrage and the Penwortham green belt/floodplain development proposals amongst the ruling majority on Preston City Council as there is on the Vision Board.

As part of this, local residents and a number of Councillors are deeply concerned about Preston Council's recent vote to remove decisions regarding large funding bids - such as for Riverworks - from the full scrutiny and democratic accountability of full council chamber and into a select City Centre Committee.

As such, questions of democratic accountability extend far beyond the Vision Board and into the Council itself.

So far we have seen no serious consultation of local people undertaken by this council regarding the Riverworks Barrage and floodplain development proposals.

When representatives from Save The Ribble Campaign finally managed to meet with Chief Executive Jim Carr and the officer with responsibility for the Riverworks scheme, Mike Brogan, this summer:

- We were assured that we would be consulted about the brief for the consultancy of the feasibility study funding bid the council are planning to submit to the North West Development Agency this financial year - BUT WE WERE NOT ASSURED THAT LOCAL PEOPLE WOULD BE CONSULTED ABOUT WHETHER THE BID WOULD GO AHEAD IN THE FIRST PLACE - DESPITE THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT LOCAL PEOPLE DON'T WANT THE BARRAGE!

- We had an interesting discussion about the many alternative ideas which local people have had to make the most of our river and green spaces without damaging these vital local assets, but THE COUNCIL DIRECTLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER PURSUING THESE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS INSTEAD - although they are quite happy to use these ideas 'as a contributor to help shape future development options' - in other words, use them to "green-up" the barrage and housing development proposals;

- No opportunity was given at the meeting to discuss the real concerns of local people and numerous environmental organisations about the environmental impacts of the barrage and floodplain development schemes, but we were assured that "THE COUNCIL WOULD NOT WISH TO PROCEED BEYOND THE STUDY IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WAS AS IRRETRIEVABLY ADVERSE AS SOME ARE PREDICTING"!!!

If the council are prepared to accept environmental impact up to the point of irretrievable damage, then they are clearly more than happy to accept a huge amount of damage, pushing the Ribble's entire ecosystem almost to the point of irretrievable collapse!


On a related note, we see with interest the Lancashire Evening Post's report that a number of prominent Preston Council officers are leaving for pastures new, and the Chief Executive of the council, Jim Carr, has claimed that some may not be replaced...

One of the leaving party is Nicola Turner, who fronts the Preston City Vision and represents both Preston City Council and the Vision Board on the Riverworks project, so we wonder whether her vacant post will be filled...?

Whilst we wave goodbye to Nicola as she heads off to Stockport to become project director for the town centre "masterplan" - which has '£500 million redevelopment of the city centre' planned 'in a deal with Australian development firm Lend Lease' (LEP 18.9.07), we are left with our own experience of Nicola Turner that she was at least prepared to come to Broadgate and give a presentation to local people about the Ribble Barrage and floodplain Housing ideas contained in the Riverworks Proposals, while those men who were responsible for coming up with these ideas in the first place were content to stay hidden away at the Town Hall, leaving her to face the public's anger on her own...

Mind you, she was also unable to answer the many important questions local people asked her, so the glossy and wholly one-sided presentation was rather limited in terms of real information.

We watch and wait...

You can contact us at savetheribble@tiscali.co.uk

Vision Board to be Made More Accountable - But Who To?

Local residents will welcome the announcement in the Lancashire Evening Post this week that Preston Vision Board may be "re-organised" to be made more accountable by including locally-elected politicians as members... but the potential appointment of the Leaders of Preston City Council and South Ribble Borough Council to the Vision Board still leaves us with serious questions which need to be answered...

-How will this really ensure that the Preston Vision Board will be fully accountable to the local residents whose communities and quality of life are at risk because of the Vision Board's AND Preston Council's barrage and building development plans?

-How will this ensure that what local people WANT to see happen in their communities will finally be listened to?

-How will this really ensure either democratic accountability or transparency, especially in view of the fact that the Leader of Preston Council, Ken Hudson, has led the new political alliance at PCC which has voted to remove decisions about big funding bids (such as for Riverworks, say) from the democratic scrutiny and decision-making process of the full Council of our elected representatives into a small select City Centre Committee?

-How will these appointments ensure that the views of the people will hold sway over Preston Vision Board's commercially-driven and narrow-minded Vision for the area, given that the Leader of Preston Council, Ken Hudson, has made the Council's intentions to pursue the Riverworks barrage and the associated building developments on the Penwortham Green Belt and floodplain abundantly clear?

-How will this ensure that the Vision Board have to consider the views and wishes of local people given that so far, Preston City Council have themselves endorsed the pursuit of the Riverworks barrage and building developments in the face of significant evidence that:

a. a large majority of local residents do NOT WANT THESE schemes;

b. both developments would damage the environment on a national, international, as well as local scale by threatening the natural intertidal functions of THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ESTUARY RIVER IN BRITAIN on the one hand (and the internationally important numbers of bird and fish species which depend on it) and destroying a significant area of Green Belt on the other – Green Belt which is also the floodplain which actively protects our communities from flooding and so far, Preston Council’s ruling political partnership is not taking the floodrisk issues of Riverworks seriously .

c. both developments would actively increase floodrisk in the area whereas our flood defences in Broadgate are in a very poor state of repair and need urgent action NOW;

d. Both schemes would waste outrageous sums of money which would be better spent on some of our estates in Preston which are officially acknowledged by Government figures to be amongst the most deprived wards in the country.

-How will these appointments lead to the blinkered Vision for barrages and floodplain developments that both Preston City Council and the Vision Board share being abandoned once and for all in favour of investment in the communities and people who really need it - instead of destroying our finest natural assets for the benefit of property developers and other vested interests?

-And HOW will these appointments make the Vision Board MORE ACCOUNTABLE to the people of Preston when the Chairman of the Vision Board and Vice Chancellor of the University, Malcolm McVicar, says that "Having council leaders on board is a good thing" but also says that "It's my responsibility as chairman to make sure it doesn't slow the process" !!!


You can read more Ribbleside news - such as how you can help out at Brockholes and how you can enjoy exploring the Ribble Way from the comfort of your armchair, and there will be more Tales From The Riverbank from local people posted on the blog soon...

...and the Preston Bird Watching & Natural History Society commence their 115th consecutive Winter Season of lectures on Monday 24th September. Non-members are welcome. For details visit the Preston Society website.

You can contact us at savetheribble@tiscali.co.uk

Preston Vision Board Split Over Ribble Barrage?

David Borrow MP, A prominent member of the Preston City Vision Board, and former leader of Preston City Council has strongly criticised the council's handling of the Riverworks Project and said "The brakes need to be applied" to the Barrage and Housing elements of the plans - "and proper joint working put in place".



He makes very angry statements about the way Preston City Council has ignored the views of his South Ribble constituents:

The ex-Preston Council leader said the authority had shown "complete disregard" for the views of people in South Ribble, despite Penwortham river banks believed to be targets for a major housing development under the scheme.

He has written a very strongly worded letter to Preston City Council saying

I will not allow the views of my constituents to be ignored and South Ribble Council to be treated like a small parish council.

There are many councillors on Preston City Council too who are equally unhappy about the lack of consultation and democratic accountability that they are currently getting from Preston City Council and the Vision Board - as are a number of Parish Councils!

Some may find Mr Borrow's words surprising, as it was the Preston City Vision Board - of which he is a member - that came up with the Barrage idea in the first place.

Save The Ribble warmly applauds Mr Borrow's statements, if Mr Borrow has now realised that his loyalties must be to the voters of South Ribble, who are overwhelmingly opposed to the barrage and the accompanying housing scheme, rather than to his colleagues on the unelected Vision Board, that is only to be welcomed.

Yet Mr. Borrow needs to make sure he fully represents his residents' views rather than simply concentrating on urging Preston City Council to consult South Ribble Borough Council since it is clear that most South Ribble residents are opposed to the barrage and the Floodplain building developments and do not want them under any circumstances...

It is also the case that a number of other communities along the Ribble will be equally affected by a Ribble barrage:
Fylde residents and their MP Michael Jack have made their own concerns very clear, but Fylde, Sefton and West Lancashire residents MUST ALSO BE FULLY CONSULTED, along with South Ribble and Preston communities.

SAVE THE RIBBLE ASKS:

Why is Preston City Council also ignoring its OWN residents on the issue?

Does Mr. Borrow actually think a Ribble barrage would be a good idea - if it was undertaken through 'joint working' with South Ribble Borough Council?

Why is Preston MP Mark Hendrick silent on the matter...?

Why is Preston City Council insisting on wasting public money by keeping the barrage and floodplain housing ideas in the feasiblity study into Riverworks, when they are opposed by 74% of local people, when few - if any - councillors can be found to speak up for them, and when even members of the Vision Board itself are now dissenting on the issue?

Update 17/7/07

I asked leading Vision Board member Jeremy Gorick "Have you anything to say about your mate Dave Borrow's remarks in yesterday's LEP?"

He replied

Mmmmm...unlike David Borrow I will raise the matter directly with him and give him the chance to explain his reasoning before commenting if at all in public. Suffice to say he gave no indication in Board meetings of any of the views expressed in his letter.

(Anyone detect a slight hint of annoyance in this terse reply???)

A Barrage of Democracy?

In a week when Gordon Brown, the new PM, declares his determination to re-democratise politics and restore the trust of the people in our elected political representatives...
in a week when 74% of residents vote NO to a Ribble Barrage...
PRESTON CITY COUNCIL HAVE VOTED TO REMOVE THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS REGARDING THE RIBBLE BARRAGE OUT OF THE DEMOCRATIC FRAMEWORK OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBER.

Councillor Jack Davenport, Riversway Ward, sent in a comment to our previous article on the overwhelmingly anti-barrage LEP vote to say that in the Council meeting last Thursday (28th June):

"both the Tories and Lib Dems backed and passed proposals to move the power and decision making over large grants from the Council to the City Centre Committee. This effectively means that in the future most Councillors will not be able to get a say in large scale projects (for example, the feasibility study for the Barrage). This removes the bulk of democratic opposition (or support) to any project and renders voter representation virtually mute on the subject. The report presented to Council mentioned the Vision Board frequently and it looks increasingly likely that the Committee will become a rubber stamping body for whatever the Vision Board wants to do or recommends."

Save The Ribble Campaign are not politically partisan as we are local residents who come from all walks of life and are of all - and no - political persuasion, and we receive support from Councillors in Preston and South Ribble from all political parties. Only today, the Lancashire Evening Post reports that whilst Ribchester suffers serious flooding, Tory shadow environment secretary Peter Ainsworth is raising concerns in Parliament about proposals to built thousands of new homes near rivers vulnerable to flooding.

Nonetheless, Preston Council chambers appears to be politically-divided, with the ruling Tory and Lib Dem group determined to remove the decisions regarding the Riverworks Barrage from the Democratic process.
This is an infringement of their democratic mandate, which is to represent the interests of the people who voted for them - 74% of whom have made it clear they do NOT want the Ribble Barrage.

This is an infringement of democracy and accountability. The pro-barrage lobby will use this to push the barrage proposal through behind closed doors and effectively ignore the wishes of local people as well as the environmental and economic consequences to the River Ribble and our local communities. Ignoring what local people and environmental organisations - such as the Environment Agency - say seems to be becoming something of a habit... As Peter Ainsworth says, "At present, a quarter of all planning applications opposed by the Environment Agency still go ahead"...

What is YOUR Councillor saying about this issue?

Does YOUR Councillor support this undemocratic decision?

Does YOUR Councillor represent YOUR interests?

Email us at savetheribble@tiscali.co.uk

Read more about the PRESTON CITY VISION BOARD'S FUNDING here

Q: WHEN IS A PLAN NOT A PLAN?

A: WHEN IT’S A “KEY PROJECT PROPOSAL” IN THE PRESTON ECONOMIC REGENERATION STRATEGY AND PRIORITISED ACTION PLAN

It seems that whenever members of the public voice concerns over the prospect of a barrage on the Ribble and the urban development of Penwortham Green Belt (Riverworks Documents 01 "Quality Riverside" and 04 the “Central Park” Development), Preston City Council is always quick to respond with the claim that these are “ideas” only and that there are "no proposals" or "plans" to build a barrage on the river or build on our Green Belt and floodplain.

In response to the concerns raised by residents in the Fylde about the barrage scheme, a spokesperson for Preston City Council told the Lytham St Annes Express (April 19th) that the Ribble barrage is purely the “stuff of dreams at the moment” and that “it is not a proposal”. This is the mantra that Preston City Council has consistently repeated since it launched its Riverworks “dream” in an attempt to diffuse the widespread opposition from both local residents and environmental groups.

Responding to fears that a barrage would increase flood risk to communities along the Ribble corridor (see LEP 26/4/07), officials at Preston City Council claimed that Riverworks was at a “very early stage with funding not even secured to carry out a feasibility and environmental impact assessment for the area. “

However, while Council officials merely insist that there are “no plans” or “proposals” to build a barrage on the Ribble or build on our Green Belt, and that further “feasibility” studies need to be completed for their "ideas", they fail to address the real and legitimate concerns that are being raised by residents and environmental organisations.

Furthermore, their own documents also show that these schemes are indeed “proposals” and “plans”, and that the direction of PCC’s policy, through the Vision Board, is to actively pursue both the barrage construction, and the building developments on the Green Belt and floodplain.


From “Visionary Ideas” to “Key Project Proposals”:

In a recent article in the Lancashire Evening Post (10/5/07), Jim Carr, Chief Executive of Preston City Council, refers to the “visionary ideas” of Riverworks and suggests that the council has a duty to give them serious consideration. Mr Carr also insists that feasibility work will need to be completed if and when the council is in a position to develop the ideas.

Yet, while Preston City Council continues to insist that the barrage and Green Belt developments are only “ideas”, it has approved and adopted the Preston Economic Regeneration Strategy and Prioritised Action Plan which states that the barrage and ‘Central Park’ urban development are “key project proposals” (p.7) of the local development strategy:

“Instead of the city ‘turning its back’ on the river, the Ribble will form the heart of future planning of the Preston-South Ribble urban area. Key project proposals include the development of a barrage across the river providing a range of economic benefits and the development of a new ‘Central Park’ with associated residential development” (p.7).


Click on the picture to enlarge it. This Prioritised Action Plan also shows the Penwortham Green Belt with housing superimposed on the top.

The strategy also proposes a new “gateway” to the City in the form of a new River crossing, linked “to the proposed construction of the barrage” (p.8).

So while PCC claims it has no plans to build a barrage on the Ribble it has adopted an Action Plan which clearly places the “construction of the barrage” as a ‘Key project proposal’, therefore an essential component of its economic development strategy - as confirmed in the document itself which states: "Riverworks is an essential component of the overall Strategy" (click to enlarge the picture of p7 above).


“Plans are in the Pipeline”:

The Riverworks proposals for Riverside East (Riverworks: see Document 05) include more residential and "commercial office" developments (apparently on Frenchwood Rec and Fishwick Bottoms) and “An extension of the river walkway through Riverside East [East Preston] to link to the former Brockholes Quarry site which will become a major visitor destination”.

The Riverworks document also states that it will provide the “reprovision of sports facilities drawing people to the river front and encouraging its active use” where "it will offer water based recreation pursuits, enabled and supported by the barrage. Riverside East will link the communities of South Ribble and Preston by providing accessible and well utilised leisure resource centred around the River…establishing a major outdoor leisure resource” explicitly linked to “the former Brockholes Quarry site".

Clearly, PCC’s “plans for this site aim to provide open water areas” (Document 05, Riverside East) which they link to “nature conservation and fishing”...

But there is no need for a barrage to “enable and support” a fishing lake, and environmentalists and angling organisations are vociferously opposed to the barrage because of the enormous damage it will cause to fish and other wildlife.

The stated aim “that a 4km stretch of the River Ribble will be brought into active use through these proposals” strongly suggests therefore that the intention for Brockholes is that it will be part of their water sports facility.

PCC will maintain that this is ideas only, but this is contradicted by their own recent Press Release on page 6 of their magazine PubliCity: 25/4/07 Issue 6, which states that “plans are in the pipeline for a ‘major outdoor leisure resource’” at Brockholes and Fishwick.


Preston City Council’s full press release reads:

“Riverside Re-vamp: An £800 million vision for the Riverworks scheme, a 20 year plan to create jobs, homes, leisure facilities and a city park [Central Park building development] centred on the river and canal is being developed. Amongst the proposals are a landmark building and a performance arena at the marina end of Preston docks. On the East side of the City, centred on Fishwick and Brockholes Brow plans are in the pipeline for a ‘major outdoor leisure resource’”.

In other words they maintain that the barrage is only an idea but have “plans… in the pipeline” for a “major outdoor leisure resource” which Preston City Council have explicitly linked to the “construction of a barrage” to “enable and support” it.


Preston City Council are Pressing Ahead With Barrage Proposals - Despite Environmental Concerns:

In a recent Council meeting Cllr John Swindells, an opponent of the barrage, asked what this major outdoor leisure resource was referring to and was told “The major leisure facility is the afteruse of the gravel workings at lower brockholes.”

In response to Cllr Swindell’s questions about the pursuit of the barrage scheme it was confirmed that PCC will be applying to the NWDA for £235k for the barrage feasibility study. They confirmed to Cllr Swindells their intention to continue pursuing their “plans”, and their determination to “go ahead” despite “the concerns expressed by RSPB, Environment Agency, Michael Jack and many others”.

The question is, WHY do they need to spend £235,000 investigating the "feasability" of a barrage on the Ribble when Environmental experts have enough knowledge about the impacts of such a scheme to oppose it NOW, whether an "idea" or a "proposal"?

- Laurence Rose, Regional Director of the RSPB said:
‘the barrage could destroy one of Britain’s most delicate ecosystems’ and “we are extremely concerned about a barrage across a protected estuary because anything that interferes with the hydrology of the estuary is prima facie bad news.”
(The Kirkham and Fylde Express, April 19th 2007);

- Dave Dunlop, from the Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester & North Merseyside, said:
The Wildlife Trust "shares the concerns of the RSPB… any development that would further constrain its natural functioning is a bad idea, and would presumably be in breach of the UK Government’s obligations under international convention and law."
(See comments on our blog Fylde community speaks out against the barrage)

- David Hinks, Chairman of the Ribble Fisheries Consultative Association, told us:
"The history of barrages placed across rivers shows that they impede migratory fish. The Ribble, thanks to the great efforts of anglers…, the habitat work of the Ribble Catchment Conservation Trust and Environment Agency, is just beginning to meet its spawning deposition target. Anything that puts this development back will put the Ribble at risk as a major salmon river. The whole ecosystem of the Ribble is delicately balanced yet Preston City Council refuse to speak to angling representatives."

- According to the Environment Agency, ‘the presence of a barrage structure across the [river’s] main water body automatically places it at high risk of not achieving the WFD [EU WaterFramework Directive] objectives’.
The River Ribble is the UK’s Pilot WFD River.

- Fylde MP Michael Jack said:
“Mankind has an enormous responsibility to look after the estuary and its wildlife and I don’t think we should be monkeying around with that for the sake of making money. You play around with nature at your peril. I remain deeply sceptical about this proposal.”
(The Lytham St Annes Express, on April 19th 2007);


It is also the case that the many Legislations which protect the Ribble because of its International, and European and National importance to the environment presume AGAINST any project which might impact on this delicate inter-tidal ecosystem - unless there is no alternative - WHICH THERE IS!
Read more about why a barrage would be so damaging to the Ribble's environment.


PCC have justified their pursuit of a Ribble barrage by claiming that it will create “many new opportunities for river usage ranging from angling, boating and general water-based recreational activities to birdwatching, walking , horse riding and cycling.”

This is patent nonsense. Thousands of us already engage in all of these activities along the Ribble as NONE OF THESE ACTIVITIES NEED A BARRAGE.
It is the height of stupidity to claim that leisure resources will be increased by plans that will destroy our Green Belt, our allotments, football pitches, the biodiversity and tranquillity of the River and riverside areas, and the very environment which hundreds of thousands of birds and fish and other wildlife depend on.

The barrage would be environmentally and economically disastrous for the whole Ribble corridor since a barrage on the River Ribble:
- would put so many of our communities at increased risk of flooding;
- would undermine the Ribble’s ecosystem upon which both nature and our communities depend;
- and thereby also undermine the very thing which forms the basis of the Ribble Coast & Wetlands Regional Park, and the £115 million this will generate every year from new visitors.


Preston City Council should start publicly engaging with the concerns that local residents and Environmental organisations have about their “plans” for the Ribble and its Green Belt instead of trying to diffuse opposition by denying that they have “plans” at all.

If Preston City Council listened to local residents, Environmental organisations, and other communities and their representatives along the Ribble corridor, they would stop pursuing these irresponsible “plans” or “key project proposals” or whatever they want to call them once and for all, for the sake of the environment, local communities, and the future of the most important estuary River in Britain.

savetheribble@tiscali.co.uk

Preston Vision Board Funding

The Preston City Vision Board is the body responsible for coming up with the unpopular and environmentally irresponsible idea of barraging the River Ribble, and of building large amounts of housing in the beautiful greenbelt areas in its floodplain.

Councillor Bhiku Patel recently asked Preston City Council "How much money is the city council putting forward in terms of supporting the Vision Board"

The answer given by 'a Council Spokesman', and printed in the Lancashire Evening Post was this: "The North West Development Agency and Preston City Council jointly funded the Vision Board for 2007/8 to the tune of £116,760".



However we find that when we check the record in Hansard, on 26th October 2006, Margaret Hodge told Geraldine Smith MP that the North West Development Agency had given Preston Vision Board £457,000.

There seems to be a very large difference between the figure of £116,760, which the Preston Council Spokesman says comes from BOTH the NWDA and the Council, and the £457,000 that the Minister said came solely from the NWDA.

The Council's quoted figures seem totally out of line with those given by the Minister, especially as we know that the feasibility study into the docks development cost over £120,000, and the feasibility study into the Barrage and Housing plans is likely to cost at least £235,000 (and as this is future expenditure, we don't think it was included in the Minister's figures).

Save The Ribble suggests that to clear up any confusion, the Preston Vision Board should now open up their accounts publicly to the people of Preston, and the council should state exactly how much money and council officer time they are devoting to the work of the Vision Board so that the people of Preston can know for sure:

Exactly how much public money is the Vision Board getting?

How much comes from the NWDA and how much from the Council?

What exactly are they spending it on?

How much, for example, was spent on lunches where Vision Board members met "key decision makers" as part of their "Contact Strategy"?

It's time for some transparency and democratic accountability from the businessmen and bureaucrats who are deciding the future of Preston and our river behind closed doors - as this is public money, we should have a right to know exactly how every penny is being spent, and whether it is being spent in our interests, or in the interests of greedy developers.

Bhiku Patel Says Preston Vision Board Must Change

In his recent council election literature, Bhiku Patel told Riversway voters

We support the views of the residents who are against the proposal to build the barrage

Now Bhiku is taking on the body responsible for first coming up with the Ribble Barrage idea, the Preston Vision Board.



Bhiku points out

"There is not a single member of this council sitting on the Vision Board and we should have some say. The interests of the city lies with the people who live here"

Respect Councillor Michael Lavalette said

"we really need to get a grip of the Vision Board and bring it under the democratic control of this council".

Preston City Council and the North West Development Agency have been funding the Vision Board to the tune of £116,760 - but it is not clear whether this figure includes the large amounts of Council Officer time dedicated to supporting work related to Vision Board projects.

It seems likely from the comments of John Collins, Council Leader, that the Vision Board will soon expand itself to include a few elected councillors.

It remains to be seen whether the co-opting of a few hand-picked councillors will mean the transformation of the Vision Board from a body that has been secretive, unaccountable and has listened solely to the views of consultants and developers, to a body that listens to, and puts the interests of Preston people first.

If they do listen to Preston people, they will have to dump their plans for a barrage and for a massive housing development on the Southern bank of the Ribble, because these are overwhelmingly opposed by local people, and directly against our interests, not just because they would raise the flood risk to local people, and mean the loss of land now used for football pitches and allotments, but also because of the terrible damage these ideas would do to our precious environment, and because they would leave us with an expensive white elephant, demanding huge amounts of money for it's maintenance every year.

PRESTON CITY COUNCIL TAKES NEXT STEP TOWARDS BUILDING RIBBLE BARRAGE

It emerged yesterday during a Preston City Council committee meeting to discuss the Preston Vision Board that a bid for a £235,000 grant from the North West Development Agency to complete a feasibility study into the building of a barrage on the Ribble will be made this municipal year 2007/8, with the study carried out the following year, 2008/9.

It was made clear this will go ahead despite the concerns expressed by the Environment Agency, the RSPB, Michael Jack MP for Fylde, and many others.

In making this decision Preston City Council is intent on ignoring the advice of the Environment Agency, the RSPB and other environmental organisations, and the opposition of local residents, some local councillors and neighbouring councils.

The decision also makes a mockery of Preston City Council's repeated assertions that the barrage scheme is "ideas" only and reveals their true intention to pursue the barrage at all costs.

Council officials revealed that, in discussions on the proposed sites for the barrage, they have ruled out sites towards the Estuary and the River Douglas, and the sites to be assessed are at the Ribble Link and nearer the city centre. The intention is clear: the Council wants the barrage to provide a permanently high water level between the canal and the proposed 'major outdoor leisure facility' which is to be constructed at Lower Brockholes Farm, once the new quarry is exhausted.

We have long suspected that the Planning Application to quarry at Lower Brockholes Farm was linked to Riverworks, but, despite denials even at yesterday's Preston City Council Committee meeting that this is a Vision Board scheme, it is nonetheless INCLUDED in recent Press Releases for 'An £800 million vision for the Riverworks scheme' which came from Preston City Council over the last few days.
The Press Release is published in Preston City Council's "PubliCity" Preston City Newsletter Issue No 6 April 25th 2007), and the Lancashire Economic Partnership Newsletter, 30th April 2007 .

The full text of this Press Release is as follows:

'Riverside Re-vamp
An £800 million vision for the Riverworks scheme, a 20 year plan to create jobs, homes, leisure facilities and a city park, centred on the river and canal, is being developed. Amongst the proposals are a landmark building and a performance arena at the marina end of Preston Dock. On the East side of the city, centred on Fishwick and Brockholes Brow, plans are in the pipeline for a 'major outdoor leisure resource'.


A large number of local residents, the Wildlife Trust, and local Fisheries organisations, were just some of those who objected to last summer's Planning Application to quarry at Lower Brockholes Farm. This last remaining section of the historic Brockholes farm lies just to the West of M6 and the new Brockholes Wetland Nature Reserve which local residents helped the Wildlife Trust to save from development following its own extensive quarrying (and WHAT development it might have been is a very interesting question...)

We were concerned about the loss of this last piece of ancient Brockholes farmland and about the potential impacts that quarrying and changes to its wetland ecosystem would have on adjacent Biological Heritage Sites such as Brockholes Wood and Brockholes Meadow, but we were also concerned that this quarry (which rather controversially stated the aggregate is needed for Riverworks in the application!) looked suspiciously like the much-denied but persistently rumoured marina to be built near the Tickled Trout... Yet this scheme was denied as being a part of Riverworks at the time, is STILL being denied as being a Vision Board scheme, yet clearly plays a significant part in Preston City Council's Riverworks 'PLANS... in the pipeline'.


Questions which need to be asked of Preston City Counil and the North West Development Agency regarding this bid include:

- How can they justify blatantly ignoring legitimate concerns expressed by numerous environmental bodies including the Environment Agency, RSPB, Wildlife Trust, the Ribble and Lancashire Fisheries Consultative Organisations, and Natural England to pursue the Ribble barrage scheme?

- How can they justify blatantly ignoring and potentially breaching International, European, and National Law regarding the Special Protection Area Status of the Ribble to pursue their barrage scheme?

- How can they justify blatantly ignoring the concerns raised by local residents and Councillors in Preston and South Ribble, as well as neighbouring residents and Councils all along the Ribble, including Fylde and Sefton, to pursue their barrage scheme?

- How can they justify committing huge economic resources to the barrage scheme, knowing full well that:

a) The previous Ribble Weir Appraisal study into the idea of barraging the Ribble HAS ALREADY pointed out that:

- it regards the increased floodrisk to Penwortham and Preston as of 'major concern';

- it identifies the need for not ONE barrage but 2 or 4 such structures to even potentially enable navigation between the Bullnose (Docks) and the Tickled Trout (Brockholes), and even then some sections would remain un-navigable;

- the weirs would need gates, which would need to be left open for long periods (even months at a time) to prevent flooding;

- it regards the potential changes to siltation downriver to be 'a matter of serious concern';

- it identifies the risk of the impounded water becoming of such poor quality 'that fish life cannot be supported'.


b) The current Ribble Shoreline Management Plan identifies:

- the need to create further intertidal wetland areas to protect communities from floodrisk and wildlife from habitat loss due to climate change over the next 50-100 years;
- NO NEED for a tidal barrage;
- the need to ensure no major changes occur in the flow and deposition of silts in the Ribble Estuary.

c) The onus for any major project has to be on SUSTAINABLE development in both economic and environmental terms;

d) The HUGE Environmental damage and HUGE economic drain caused by barrages which ties in current and future generations to spending literally £MILLIONS every year, year after year, to try to reduce the impact on floodrisk, water quality, fisheries, and wildlife.


Preston has, according to figures released in the Local Development Framework documents, some of the most deprived areas IN ENGLAND, ranking 59th out of 354 local authorities in England in the 2004 Indices of Deprivation (compared to 172 for Chorley and 229 for South Ribble).

So what are they doing about it? Putting in an outrageous and absurd application which seeks to bid for £235,000 in order to progress a £multi-million scheme - so much money which could be so usefully spent elsewhere - which will damage an Internationally important wetland ecosystem, be detrimental to our much-valued local environment, and increase floodrisk to communities all along the Ribble corridor.

It will also be detrimental to the new Ribble Coast & Wetlands Regional Park, launched just weeks ago with exciting and innovative ideas to create environmentally and economically SUSTAINABLE tourism and jobs, and which, according to the NWDA's own figures, will bring in an extra £115 million in new visitors every year to Ribbleside communities.

Preston City Council's Ribble barrage scheme is neither environmentally nor economically justifiable, is an outrageous waste of resources, and will be detrimental to our environment, to the economic viability of all Ribbleside communities, and to the Internationally-significant River Ribble.


If Preston Council's leaders, and their developer friends on the Vision Board imagine local residents, and environmentalists across the country will meekly accept this irresponsible and dangerous scheme, they badly need to think again.

savetheribble@tiscali.co.uk

Lunch Is On Us

Preston Vision Board, is already being dubbed by some as "Preston's real government", because it is making key decisions that will affect the future of all Preston's people. Yet the group is unelected and represents property developers such as Grosvenor Estates, and other businesses involved in the construction industry. This is the group which first came up with the notion of barraging the Ribble, and building over 4000 houses in it's floodplain.

The group is only now beginning to release minutes of it's meetings, going right back to it's first meetings in 2003.

We at Save The Ribble have got a copy of the minutes of their meeting held on 20th December 2006, courtesy of a Labour councillor who is angry at the Vision Board's record of failing to inform or consult elected members on the Riverworks proposals.

He said "We should continue to press forward with our views to ensure the Vision Board, unelected/appointed by who I do not know, listen and act according to what the local community want rather than dictate to us their opinion based possibly on commercial interests"

Minutes always give a very limited picture of what actually went on at a meeting - this one was attended by 11 people, including David Borrow MP.

From the minutes we learn that the feasibility study into the docks project has been funded with a £120,000 grant from the NWDA. This feasibility study does not cover the proposals to build a barrage across the River Ribble, so one can only imagine how much extra public money the study into these proposals is likely to cost.

Jean Hunter of South Ribble Borough Council confirmed her authority's 'continued support' for the Riverworks project. (This is likely to come as news to many South Ribble councillors, who like the Preston Councillors, have largely been kept in the dark about the Riverworks proposals).

Jim Carr suggested that Riverworks could contain consideration of 'sustainable energy production' - If he means using the barrage to generate hydro-electric power, then this really is a non-starter, the amount of electricity that could be generated from the Ribble would be absolutely tiny compared with the immense environmental damage a barrage would cause. In order to get the 'head' of the river high enough to generate electricity for any length of time, the water level would need to be raised even more, vastly increasing the flood risk to locals.

"Contact Strategy"

The Vision Board are also having a big Public Relations drive, a 'contact strategy', which seems to be aimed at leading figures in the local media, as well as 'briefing key decision makers' (no mention of informing or consulting those people likely to be directly affected by their proposals, such as local Prestonians and South Ribblers living near the Ribble!)

Michelle Surrell, Managing Director of Rock FM and Magic 999 is to be invited to join the Vision Board, as well as this;

"a target list of decision makers to be developed with input from Alan Roff, Jim Carr and Jean Hunter and a draft script/key briefing points developed. Volunteer Vision Board members (preferably not local authority) requested; lunch to be provided/paid for the VB members....

Malcolm McVicar, Jeremy Gorick and Nicola Turner to arrange lunch with the editor of the Lancashire Evening Post"

We at 'Save The Ribble' are sure that the editor of the LEP has such high standards of journalistic integrity that he will not allow a lunch with these people to prevent him from fairly presenting both sides of the Ribble Barrage debate - though we would like to extend a cordial invitation, as part of our own 'contact strategy', to the editor to join us in a kebab from the Barakah Takeaway on Fishergate Hill, he can even have extra chilli sauce...

Former Preston Mayor Lambasts Vision Board

Members of the Save The Ribble Campaign were amongst the other local residents who attended Preston City Council's 'Central Area Forum' on Thursday 15th March.

We found that our concerns about the undemocratic Vision Board's schemes were shared, not just by residents, but also by some councillors.

Nicola Turner, the City Vision Manager for Preston gave a presentation on the work of the group, revealing the membership of the group that wants to barrage the River Ribble and build 4000 houses in its floodplain to be:

Malcom McVicar (UCLAN)
Jeremy Gorick (Iotech/Liquid Plastics/Flexcrete)
Keith Scott (Retired Architect)
Steve Jackson (New Reg Dot Com)
Grosvenor Estates
Khalid Saifullah (ABF Ent)
Alan Roff (PSP)
David Borrow MP
Paul Spooner (English Partnership)
Jim Carr (Preston City Council)
Steve Dean (LCDL)
Jean Hunter (SRBC)
Denis Taylor (Lancashire Economic Partnership)

Ms Turner did not mention millionaire businessman Arif Patel who according to the Lancashire Evening Post, quit his position on the Vision Board in 2004 after the LEP "unearthed the fact that he had pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to defraud the council after Lancashire Police's Operation Angel investigation into claims of town hall corruption." According to this report "Membership (of the Vision Board) is by personal recommendation and subsequent agreement by the Vision Board"

The Vision Board are not elected by anybody, yet are making momentous proposals about the future of Preston and about how large sums of public money, and Preston City Council officer's time should be spent.

The group has been in existence since 2003, but they only published the minutes of their meetings, going back to 2003, last week. Some of their documents, according to Nicola Turner cannot be released to the public because they are 'commercially sensitive'.

We have been told many times that the proposals put forward in previous Council/Vision Board documents, which show maps of major housing developments on the green fields, sports grounds and allotments on the South Bank of the Ribble are 'just ideas' and 'blue sky thinking', and that Save The Ribble are 'mischief making' when we draw local people's attention to these images and documents, yet at this meeting we found yet another glossy brochure, bearing the City Council Logo, which shows computer graphics of blocks of flats along the tramway and on the fields opposite both Avenham and Miller Parks (over land currently used by Penwortham Town FC to play football and train local kids).

The document says that 'Key Project Proposals include the development of a barrage across the River providing a range of economic and environmental benefits' It also states that this is an 'Urban Area' contradicting it's introduction where it refers to 'easy access to areas of open countryside'.

Local people's objections to the undemocratic, unrepresentative and secretive nature of the Vision Board were echoed by a local councillor, and former mayor, who lambasted the board for its secrecy and said that he shared residents concerns about the barrage proposals, while Councillor Swindells, another councillor who has publicly declared his opposition to the barrage proposals, said that he had been assured by people at the Environment Agency that any proposals to build housing in the floodplain would be in breach of their policies.

When we asked Nicola Turner why the Vision Board were planning to spend large amounts of money on a feasibility study into the Ribble Barrage proposals, when in 1986 Halcrow had carried out the River Ribble Weir Appraisal into an almost identical set of ideas, which had led the council at the time to dump the ideas as they were impractical and would raise the flood risk to local people, she incredibly said that she had never heard of this study! She went on to say that although she had never heard of it, she was sure that Mike Brogan, her boss, would have read it, probably...

The whole section of the meeting devoted to the 'work' of the Vision Board showed what a secretive shambles is going on, behind closed doors, in a way that is making some local councillors angry and frustrated at their lack of accountability.

Is it 'mischief making' to suggest that the future of our City should be determined by people who are elected and subject to public democratic scrutiny, people who demonstrate a commitment to the well being of local people, not to the wallets of greedy developers and wealthy businessmen?

If the Council and the Vision Board are to maintain any kind of credibility with local people, they should publicly renounce any plans to barrage our river, or to build housing in its floodplain - if they proceed further with these ideas, they will make local people even angrier, and more determined to resist.

Further Reading:

Click here for Aidan Turner-Bishop's 28 Questions for the Preston Vision Board

Riverworks: Preston City Council Ties Itself In Knots

Faced with local peoples' anger, and the opposition of councillors like John Swindells to the ideas of a Ribble Barrage and 4000 houses in the Ribble Floodplain, leading figures in Preston City Council now seem to be backtracking and trying to imply that they had nothing to do with these ideas from the Riverworks proposals, that they are all the work of the Preston Vision Board and the North West Development Agency, and that they have no status in Preston City Council Policy.

However they are being so evasive about their own role in the Riverworks Initiative, that they have ended up making contradictory statements.

The Position Statement Document (click to enlarge and read in full)

In this 'Position Statement' writen on 28/11/06, and distributed to every councillor, they make no mention of Preston City Council or South Ribble Borough Council's role in initiating and promoting the Riverworks proposals (blaming it all instead on the NWDA, Lancashire County Developments Limited and the 'Independent' Vision Board) and say that

'Riverworks is not part of any policy currently being implemented by Preston and South Ribble Councils'.

This is very strange, because if you look on Preston City Council's own website, you will see that they say

"Preston City Council and South Ribble Borough Council are working on a joint vision to maximise the true potential of the River Ribble...Both Preston and South Ribble Councils are supporting the Riverworks initiative and are now in consultation with the North West Development Agency on ways and means of moving the project on to the next stage."

So which way is it Preston City Council? Is Riverworks 'not part of any council policy', or are you doing your utmost to find 'ways and means to move the project onto the next stage'?

GVA Grimley, who call themselves Preston City Councils 'key adviser' and who are a leading consultancy involved in the Riverworks Initiative, are

"a retained advisor to Preston City Council in providing specialist consultancy support for their Economic Regeneration Strategy and Priority Action Plan for the Preston Vision Board"

They are working for BOTH Preston City Council AND the Vision Board, and there doesn't seem to be a very clear line where one begins and the other ends (except when Save The Ribble ask to see documents produced by the Vision Board - then we are told that they are nothing to do with the council and cannot be released to local people!)

The leaders of Preston City Council (and South Ribble Borough Council) cannot wriggle out of it, or like Pontius Pilate wash their hands of their involvement. They are 100% responsible for all the ideas in the Riverworks proposals, including the Riverworks Barrage and Housing Ideas, and if they wished, they could publicly renounce any intention of ever building such a barrage, or any housing in the river's floodplain.

If Preston City Council were to make a clear statement that they have no intention of building the Ribble Barrage, or of building 4000 houses in the floodplain of the River Ribble, they would put an end to most of the controversy around their Riverworks proposals - why do they not do this?

What they have done instead, is to 'subcontract' their policy and decision making process to the unelected luminaries of the Vision Board, and to take it away from more democratic and open forums where elected councillors could do the job they were elected to do by scrutinising, questioning and influencing the proposals and those working on them, on behalf of their constituents.

The amount of money concerned lies between £650 million and £800 million. The decisions made will irreversibly change the future of our city, and the environment of our river, for miles both upstream and downstream of any barrage. The huge amount at stake should mean that the Riverworks ideas and their architects should be subject to the most open, accountable and democratic process possible, instead of being hidden from the scrutiny of local people and their elected representatives.



If more councillors do not come forward and demand the fundamental right of local people and their elected representatives to be involved in this process from the beginning, not when it is already too late, the ordinary people of Preston and South Ribble certainly will.

Riverworks "Undemocratic": Michael Lavalette

Another councillor has joined the ranks of those on Preston City Council with serious objections to the Riverworks Barrage and Floodplain housing ideas.

Last week we reported how Councillor Swindells, a Labour Cabinet Member for the Environment and Sustainability had written in to the Lancashire Evening Post to say that "the formation of a weir/barrage is a step too far...the River Ribble is a joy to behold and a precious gift to all of us that we should not do anything to change without the backing of all Prestonians".

The Riversway Labour councillors, Bhiku Patel, Jack Davenport and Linda Crompton are on record as saying about the Riverworks Proposals "Not all the ideas may be appropriate to this area" and that "many of the ideas look promising, while others seem barely feasible".

And today we read of how the secrecy and lack of democracy or accountability that surrounds the Riverworks ideas has angered Respect Party Councillor Michael Lavalette.

Councillor Lavalette is frustrated at the lack of democratic accountability displayed by those behind the Riverworks proposals

His letter which you can also read on the Lancashire Evening Post Website states
"At recent council meetings I have asked questions about the proposals, about removal of green space and about various rumours regarding 'development' to recreational and historic sites in the City. Each time the response from the Cabinet was 'there are no proposals for change' 'nothing is happening'...but now the Evening Post confirms what many of us suspected".

He goes on to say "It seems full council is no longer the place where councillors are informed of decisions about our city. These decisions, taken by unelected boards... are relayed to ordinary councillors via the press. What is happening to democracy and democratic accountability - under Labour in Preston?"

Councillor Lavalette's letter to the Lancashire Evening Post. (Click on the image to enlarge it)

Preston City Councillors have been known to debate for hours about the redesignation of a parking zone or the rerouting of a bus, so it seems outrageous that this Councillor should feel he is being kept in the dark about a scheme that could cost upwards of £650 million, with the barrage on its own potentially costing £50 million. It seems traditional in Preston that the larger the amount of money and the greater the environmental stakes, the less openness, democracy and accountability there is in the decision making process.

We are sure there are many more councillors, in Preston, South Ribble, and other areas that would be affected by the proposals who are uneasy and unhappy about the flood risk and threat to the environment posed by ideas like a barrage or floodplain housing, and by the secretive conduct of the unelected 'Vision' Board - it is time for these councillors, and everyone else who wants to stop the Ribble barrage and greenbelt housing ideas to come forward and make their views known, before it is too late...

Preston - Capital City of Undemocratic Planning

Preston residents, and Save The Ribble members have been criticising Preston City Councils' whole approach to planning in the City.

Yesterday two biting letters from Aiden Turner-Bishop and David Whittle were published in the Lancashire Evening Post:

In Aiden's letter he describes the councils approach to city planning, with Riverworks, the Tithebarn project and now plans for Friargate, an approach that is "not only arrogant, but it's incompetent and careless ... in other words, wait until it's all stitched up and we'll pretend to listen to you".

David Whittle, of the Flag Market Debating Society weighs in too - "planners beware what you do when you use your pencil, with 'destroy' written on the right hand."

A common theme throughout all recent council planning announcements, and particularly those made by the "self-appointed grandees of the Vision Board" is that the council has been planning for rather than with local people - listening to the whims of profit hungry developers rather than asking the local people what they want or need. Aiden points out that "thoughtless errors will happen because the planners only listen to themselves".

If Preston continues on this course of destruction of everything that local people find valuable, our green spaces, our allotments, our football fields and recreation grounds, the mistakes and scandals of the 1980's will look like a vicars' tea party in comparison.


Residents Against Northern Trust

In other news of local people standing up to developers, the people of Lea turned out in force4 to oppose a development between Riversway, Finney Park Drive and Stoney Butts. They have set up 'RANT': 'Residents against Northern Trust' - who have put forward plans to build on land subject to subsidence, and swimming in all kinds of noxious substances.

The reality is that in Preston, all the good places to build housing have already been built on - there are usually very good reasons why vacant land has not yet been developed.

The green spaces that are left in this city are very precious to Preston people,and to wildlife, they're part of what makes Preston a decent place to live in - lets stick together to keep hold of them.

Phil Widdows Shoots From The Lip - Riverworks is "Bloated and Bonkers"

Our blog is generating a lot of heated debate about the housing and barrage elements of the Riverworks proposals, and attracting new readers all the time.

One such new reader is Phil Widdows, the Lancashire Evening
Post's opinion columnist, who has his own blog where he
posts personal opinions, that whether you agree with them or not, are entertaining and forthright: Shooting from the Lip.


"rather earnest protesters getting hot, bothered and holier than thou about the idea of building a barrage across the River Ribble" - (How Phil Widdows sees us!)

Here is what he has to say on his blog about Save The
Ribble's article Riverworks, the Housing Sums That Don't Add Up:

Sold Up The River?

The rather earnest protesters getting hot, bothered and holier than thou about the idea of building a barrage across the River Ribble to turn what is too often a dribble into a useable leisure facility ("but won't anyone think of the little birdies?!?") have finally hit on something that deserves serious answers.

At their blog they point to all the stuff other than the barrage itself - including the jolly wheeze of building houses and commercial property on what is and will be a
flood plain - included in the bloated and bonkers Riverworks scheme and ask, if Preston and South Ribble have an official oversupply of housing, why is the council
spending money on feasibility studies, and asking for much more money from the National Lottery to push these ideas forward?

They then add:

One thing is clear, the Riverworks housing and barrage proposals are ideas that are being driven by the potential profits of developers, rather than by the wishes or needs of residents of Preston and South Ribble.

Whether the barrage itself is a good idea or not is up for debate (it's far too expensive and will never get built, but that needn't spoil a good fight). What must not be allowed to happen is for Preston City Council to spend public money on studies to test the feasibility of a housing scheme which, under its own planning policy, stands as much chance of coming to reality as Togo have of winning the World Cup.

Step carefully, councillors, or the barrage could quickly turn into a very different kind of "water gate" to the one you expect...

As Deep Throat (no, not that one) said ... "Follow the money".

Phil Widdows is right to be pointing out the mess of contradictions the council is getting itself into - here is a link to the council policy on housing development that is being blatantly ignored by supporters of Riverworks in the council: Draft SPG9

This policy states clearly:

The tightened control rules out the building of new houses on “greenfield” land and cuts back the number of houses to be approved on “brownfield” land.

and limits the number of new houses that can be built in Preston to just 180 a year until 2016.

It states

An oversupply will contravene the policies of both the Regional Plan and the Lancashire Structure Plan

Given the clarity of this policy, how do we explain the enthusiasm of so many people at the Council to build 4000 houses in this area?

We say it is time for Preston's council officers to start listening to their own council policies, and more importantly, to the views of Preston people, who are becoming angrier at the Riverworks housing and barrage ideas every day.

We will carry on asking the council awkward questions - the 350,000 birds in the Ribble Estuary ARE important, as are the people who live near the river, whose homes would be at increased risk of flooding if the barrage were to cause the water table beneath them to rise.

One thing is clear - blogging is working - the council can no longer get away with weasel-worded hype and every detail of the Riverworks proposals is now beginning to be carefully scrutinised by people who care about the River Ribble, it's people and it's environment.

Blogging reaches the places other campaigning methods cannot go!