SAVE SPODDEN VALLEY
Rochdale Township, Social Forum meeting 4 November 2004.

SAVE SPODDEN VALLEY have received dozens of questions from concerned individuals about
recent activity on the former Turner Brothers Asbestos factory site.
Below are some of the questions.
Please could these be answered by all those who have responsibility for this site:

TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS

How safe will the Spodden Valley’s woodland be now that a permanent Tree Preservation Order
is in place?

Why are some groups of trees missing from the Order?
An area between A1 and A4 on the TPO map

What is the difference between a Tree Preservation Order for:
-Individual trees
-Groups of trees
-Woodland.

Why were “groups of trees” protected instead of a “woodland” TPO?

REPAIRING THE DAMAGE

Why have Council Officers told members of the public that “nothing can be done about the trees
that have already gone”?

Who is liaising with the Forestry Commission?

Large scale felling is controlled by the Forestry Act 1967 (as amended 1986).

What is the Council’s view about such breaches of the law?

It may be unlawful to fell the amount and type of trees destroyed on Woodland Rd and Spod Rd
without a licence. When is the prosecution?

Why hasn’t a Restocking Order been enforced?

How much work does Treelink Ltd do for Rochdale Council?

Why hasn’t Rochdale Council publicly commented on the woodland destruction?
Rochdale Council has a commitment to increase its woodland cover in the Borough.
See draft UDP NE/5 - NE10. The national average is 7%, Rochdale has 2.5%.
What can be done to make the Spodden Valley part of the Pennine Edge Forest?

WILDLIFE CRIME

What is attitude of Rochdale Council and Greater Manchester Police towards the enforcement of
the Criminal law to protect the Spodden Valley’s flora, forna and wildlife habitats?

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended by the Countryside Rights of Way Act 2000.

Bats
The Spodden Valley is home to a number of bat species:

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) protects bats and their roosts. Recently, the WCA 1981
has been strengthened by the implementation of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CroW 2000)

The Conservation (Natural Habitats, & Co.) Regulations 1994 implements into UK law what is better
known as the Habitats Directive. All bats are listed as 'European protected species of animals'.

It is an offence for any person to:
 Intentionally kill, injure or take a bat. Under the Habitats Regulations it is an offence to deliberately
capture or kill a bat.
 Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place that a bat uses for shelter
or protection The Court’s have interpreted this to protect all bat roosts whether bats are present or not.
Prior to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, there was a defence in law if somebody was
reckless in their actions that harmed bats - this defence is no longer available.

 Under the Habitats Regulations it is an offence to damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place
of any bat. This is an absolute offence – this means that, intent or recklessness does not have to be proved.

Wild Birds
Trees were destroyed the height of the nesting season.

An RSPB volunteer (membership No.16904277) has conducted a survey of the Woodland Rd area for the
Society for several seasons. Prior to the destruction in May 2004 the following species were spotted:

Tawny Owls, Sparrow Hawks (nested 2001), Kestrels, Greater Spotted Woodpeckers,
Green Woodpeckers, Nuthatches, Tree Creepers, Warblers, Fieldfares, Redwings, Bramblings,
Wrens, Thrushes, Blackbirds, Chaffinches, Longtailed Tits, Great Tits, Blue Tits, Wood Pigeons,
Bullfinches.

Local people are willing to give signed witness statements to the police.

1981 Act section 1(5), as amended by CroW 2000 Sched.12 para 1.

It is an offence intentionally or recklessly:

(i) to disturb any wild bird included in Schedule 1 while it is building a nest or is in, on, or near, a nest
containing eggs or young; or
(ii) to disturb dependent young of such a bird.

“TEMPORARY” FENCING

Temporary mesh fencing was erected days before tree felling commenced in May 2004. We were
told by Treelink Ltd this was a safety measure to keep the public away from people working with
chainsaws.

When is the many hundred of yards of “temporary” mesh fencing to be
removed?
In MMC’s only press release (20 May 2004), they said that the fencing was there to control the
“misuse of parts of the site” and to protect “key areas”. These are now protected by a TPO so when
is the fencing coming down?
The fencing remains on Woodlands Rd beside the cleared area and on Spod Road where felled trees
still remain. A substantial amount of the fencing remains on a part of the site where planned tree felling
work never started (Foot Wood, behind the Bowling Green and Tennis Courts). No soil was disturbed
and all the trees are now protected by a permanent TPO. Woodland footpaths remain blocked.

What action is Rochdale Footpath officer taking to ensure all Rights of Way are available to walkers,
cyclists and horse riders in the Spodden Valley?
The temporary fencing has blocked a number of paths around the site that have been used by the public
for over 20 years. Obstruction of Rights of Way is a Public Nuisance.
Criminal proceeding may be taken against any landowner or other person causing such an obstruction.
Highways Act 1980, section 137.

PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE

Does MMC Developments Limited / Rathbone Jersey Limited carry Public Liability Insurance for the
land they own and control in the Spodden Valley?

Every “occupier” of property has a legal duty to take reasonable care to ensure that visitors to
their land are reasonably safe. Occupiers Liability Act, 1957, 1984.

Some parts of the site where the public have rights of access are poorly maintained (eg: the bridge on
the path around the lodge, no longer has a guardrail and planks are missing. There is a foreseeable risk
of very serious injury. The lodge area is designated a site of ecological importance, the public have
had a right to pass safely over this land for decades.

Potential injuries on the site go far beyond “slipping and tripping”…

Mesothelioma and asbestos related lung cancer-
Before selling the site, the Administrators for T&N suggested that the new owners of the site and
their successors would be liable for any negligent injury cause by exposure to asbestos. The current
owner of the site, MMC Developments Limited, company registered number 03261090, has
3 shareholders and a share capital of £100. What financial safeguards are in place if damage
and harm is caused?

CONTAMINATED LAND

Although Rochdale Council views the “whole site as contaminated” (draft UPD R/4(j)), what steps
is the Council taking to ensure that public health is not at risk?

Does the condition of this site fall under the strict legal definition of “Contaminated land”?
Environmental Protection Act 1990, section 78A(2).

What investigations regarding contaminated land have been conducted since public concern
was raised in May 2004.

Has a “Significant Pollution Linkage” (SPL) been identified on this site?

Has there been dialogue with the Environment Agency about the potential for this site being
considered a “Special Site”?

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILTY and PARTICIPATION

As the lead authority with responsibility for this site, what is Rochdale Council doing to liaise
with all other government bodies and organizations?
These include: English Nature, Greater Manchester Police, (National) Wildlife Crime Enforcement Team,
DEFRA, Forestry Commission, Environment Agency, Health Protection Agency, Director of Public Health,
Government Office for the North West, Health & Safety Executive,

What “Council backed” regeneration has our Council been involved in with MMC Developments?

Who made the decision to change the planning designation for what was the world’s largest
asbestos textile factory to allow, in principle, for “mixed use” development that could include
an “Urban Village”?

What information was relied upon to allow, in principle, for houses to be built on a former
asbestos factory?

Rochdale Council has a number of site surveys commissioned by the sites former owners.
Why can’t local people scrutinize these documents?

Have Rochdale Council Officers been in negotiations with other developers of this site other
than MMC Developments Limited / Rathbone Jersey Limited?

MMC’s only press release (20 May 2004) describes a “national firm of house builders” involved.

When did Council Officers start talking to this “national firm of house builders”?

Why are Rochdale Council Officers telling concerned members of the public to
“stop talking about contamination” on that site?

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

STATEMENT ENDS.