Save Ashton Park

12/07/2024

Archaeology Update

The Salford Archaeology survey report, which appeared on the Preston planning website last month, recommended further investigation of an area (references TGE09 and TGE10 on the plan) which was described as “a possible house platform or courtyard house, and an adjacent linear earthwork”, perhaps medieval in date. That lies in a section of the Park which would be obliterated by the proposed sports pavilion and car park.

Of course, Salford Archaeology are only consultants, offering expert opinion. The final archaeological decisions are made by the Lancashire County Council Historical Environment Team, and we’ve had to wait several weeks for their response and conclusions. We now know why their reply took so long – and it is good news.

The HET agreed that TGE09 and TGE10 merit further examination. But they also decided to expand the investigations to include a second area in a different part of the park. That’s not a location which would be directly affected by building works, but it would be impacted by a proposed path running through it. You can see it on the plan as a large L-shaped, shallow linear ditch (reference TGE32). The dating is very uncertain, but there is nothing shown there on early maps and the feature (whatever it is) looks architectural, not merely a field boundary.

And so the HET report concludes:

“It should therefore not come as a complete surprise to the applicant that I am therefore advising of the need for the further investigation of these two areas by means of the excavation of a number of trial trenches in order to characterise the nature, extent and date and significance of any surviving archaeological features, with a view to helping formulate a further stage of archaeological mitigation, should it be considered necessary.

“Consequently it is the HET's advice that condition no. 5 should not be discharged at this time, nor until the aforementioned evaluation works as well as any subsequent further archaeological excavation and recording that might be required, have been satisfactorily completed, reported and archived.”

That is certainly not what promoters of the sports hub wanted to hear. At a minimum it will delay their project by months and add tens of thousands of pounds to the budget before any on-site work could even begin. But for anyone who cares about the early history of Preston it is an exciting development.

29/06/2024

This week many of you will have received this election flyer from Sir Mark Hendrick. It includes a tear-off section titled I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU, with sub-title ‘What can Labour do to improve things in your area?” and an address for return.

Please return it. Please mention Ashton Park. Yes, Sir Mark supported Preston’s original LUF bid, but there is evidence that his views have shifted and that he is open to changes including moving the sports hub away from Ashton Park to another location. We believe he understands the damage which the Ashton Park proposals have caused, not just in local electoral terms, but also in terms of fractured relations within the Labour group on the city Council.

Preston is a safe Labour constituency. Whoever you personally vote for, it is highly likely that Sir Mark will be your newly re-elected MP on July 5. By returning the slip and highlighting Ashton Park you will be providing an incentive for him to add his voice to those (both inside and outside the Labour party) seeking major alterations to the scheme.

16/06/2024

21/02/2024

16/02/2024

UNBIASED JUDGES?

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐋𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐬 (𝐂𝐥𝐥𝐫𝐬 𝐁𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐰, 𝐂𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐌𝐞𝐢𝐧) 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥’𝐬 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐞. 𝐃𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐥𝐲𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐬𝐡𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐤 𝐒𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐇𝐮𝐛 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲?

There is some guidance available. The Local Government Association produces a leaflet, “𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨”. The LGA guidelines draw a distinction between 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 and 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. Predetermination is always wrong. You must not sit in judgement on a planning application if you think only one outcome is acceptable. Predisposition is much less clear, because councillors will inevitably have positive or negative views on almost every issue that comes before them.

We should think of ‘predisposition’ as a range, with the mild end being both natural and inevitable and the severe end merging into ‘predetermination’. So, the LGA makes this assessment: “𝑨 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒓 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒂𝒍𝒘𝒂𝒚𝒔 𝒃𝒆 𝒋𝒖𝒅𝒈𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒕 𝒂𝒏 𝒐𝒃𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒕𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒐𝒏𝒍𝒐𝒐𝒌𝒆𝒓, 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒌𝒏𝒐𝒘𝒍𝒆𝒅𝒈𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒗𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒔, 𝒘𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒓 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒃𝒊𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒅.”

It isn’t in dispute that the three Lea and Larches councillors hold strongly positive views about the Sports Hub. Right from the start, and consistently thereafter, they have expressed enthusiastic approval, approval undiminished by the growing awareness within Preston Council that the Ashton Park plans were highly contentious, undiminished by the 80% rejection of those plans during the consultation, undiminished by the Preston Constituency Labour Party passing a resolution urging the Council to withdraw the proposals.

At the very minimum that testifies to passion, determination, and effective advocacy. And passion, determination and effective advocacy are all admirable qualities in a councillor. But they all have consequences. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞. 𝐈𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫-𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐚 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫.

If you consider that Borrow, Crowe and Mein are too heavily invested in building the Sports Hub to be genuinely without bias, you should write and ask that they recuse themselves from determining planning application 06/2023/1379. Email addresses for all three can be found on the Preston Council website.

𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐨𝐧.