Too Late to Save Chew Moor Village?

Two hundred years ago, on 25 July, 1807 an Act of Parliament was passed consenting to the Inclosure of Chew Moor in the Township of Lostock. As Mr R Hargreaves described in his publication, ’Lostock and Chew Moor, an Illustrated Record’ (1977), at that time Chew Moor was ‘a cluster of cottages housing the landless labourers, and the smaller tenant farmers.’ The enclosure of land ended the traditional arrangement whereby the Lord of the Manor and the villager had shared rights, known as ‘rights in common’ over the village common, on which the cottager had a strip of land which he could cultivate, and on which he could graze his cow or pig.

Since 1807, Chew Moor has been developed. Mills and coal pits have come and gone, and housing has extended outwards, but the heart of the village, the road which runs through it, still retains its village character.

That road is now traffic-calmed by chicanes. The need for these is not merely to cope with increased traffic generated by residents. Chew Moor is fast acquiring a new status as a sports facilities dumping ground. In addition to the local club, the Ladybridge Football Club now has pitches in Chew Moor as well as in Ladybridge Lane in Heaton. Development of the Metal Box site for housing has included displacement of the sports facilities from that site to Chew Moor. These three existing clubs now experience a dearth of new recruits from the local community. Despite this, a proposal for a huge sports development is envisaged on Green Belt land at the Lostock end of Chew Moor village. This proposal, like the Metal Box move of the sports facilities, is the by-product of another development which depends in part on displacing sports facilities.

There are many wildlife issues in the area proposed for development. An ancient hawthorn hedgerow provides much needed cover for birds. A herd of roe deer uses the fields. St John's Wood and surrounding trees house an established bat colony. Autumn crocuses adjacent to St John's Wood are currently protected, as is a local wild flower meadow, with the help of the Chew Moor Conservation Society, which also maintains footpaths around St John's Wood. Why has no Environmental Impact Assessment been made regarding St John's Wood, and indeed the whole site? Parts of the fields are currently used for grazing horses; goats graze a different part. What will happen to these grazing rights?

The Jubilee Park is maintained by the Council, who have planted cherry trees there. This is the only park in Chew Moor. The area will become a car park under these proposals. What plans are there to replace the Jubilee Park within Chew Moor village?

Four possible sites were identified to accommodate the sports facilities displaced by the Beehive development, but only the one in Chew Moor is being promoted. If accepted, it will ruin the ambience of Chew Moor, introducing excess traffic, parking problems, intrusive noise and floodlighting, and a licensed sports pavilion which may well act as a magnet for disturbance.

Two hundred years ago, two commissioners were appointed to apportion the land to be enclosed in Chew Moor justly. They allocated two acres, adjacent to the gravel hole, for the benefit of the schoolmaster. How times have changed. Would these commissioners judge the proposed enclosure of Green Belt land as just?

What Price Trees?

Readers of last year’s newsletter may recall the felling, in January 2006, of 28 protected trees in Old Hall Clough, and the adjoining site at Low Wood, High Bank Lane. The case has just been concluded. During the intervening 15 months, both the Civic Trust and Lostock Residents Group have had observers present at all 4 adjournments and at the actual hearing.

The Old Hall Clough site, a wildlife haven, underwent considerable disturbance when mature trees, which had been assessed as having a useful life of 25 years, were felled and the surrounding undergrowth was removed. The site suffered more disruption when the trees were replaced. Of course, the replacement trees are less mature than those felled. They are not in the identical place to the original ones, as that is occupied by stumps. The wildlife in this secluded habitat has suffered continued pressure during the 10 month delay in replacing the trees, and it could take years for the quality of the habitat to be fully restored. It was accepted in court that the replacement of illegally felled trees cannot be pleaded in mitigation. Bolton Council’s Policy N6 requires replanting of all felled trees, even if those had been felled with the Council’s blessing.

It is difficult to imagine a more blatant disregard of Tree Preservation Orders. This was a serious contravention of the regulations, compounded by repeated refusal to comply with the instructions of the Council’s Officers. To the innocent it is a mystery why the Old Hall Clough site was touched, as no Planning Application was made for it. The more cynical will note that the trees removed blocked access to a possible development site. We expected a fine towards the upper end of the scale, the maximum fine being £20,000 for each protected tree. The fine imposed was a mere £2,000 for each tree. It is disappointing to find that the punishment does not seem to fit the crime.

In discussions after the case, the possibility was raised of including witness statements by residents in the evidence bundle produced by the Council. This would open the door to residents being able to give evidence in Court. Had that happened, it is possible that a more appropriate fine would have been levied. Yet another reason for residents not only alerting the Trees and Woodland Officers at the first sign of trouble, but also keeping a diary of what is happening.

This exceptional case should not obscure the much greater damage occurring in the Borough on an almost daily basis as unprotected trees, some of them magnificent, are removed before any planning application is made, with the intention of maximising the profit on the site. Again, residents can fulfil a crucial role, by alerting the Trees and Woodlands Officers, who have powers to make emergency Tree Preservation Orders. Members will recall that this happened over a year ago at 504-514 Chorley New Road, where a large wooded area was suddenly cleared of large numbers of trees, but the last few remaining trees on the frontage to Chorley New Road, were saved, thanks to the prompt action of neighbours.

Has the time come for a further Tree Survey for Bolton? It is surprising that several tree-lined roads in the borough, Chorley New Road obviously being one of them, do not have unbroken tree protection along their length. Planning professionals take great notice of ‘street scene’. Could we in Bolton ensure that at least we protect the face that we show to the world?