Jump to content

Creamfields - can you hear it ?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Which is completely wrong and unfair as what they (and the Judge who at appeal found in favour of the applicant) have in effect done is to pave the way for the future of such events on the land by ensuring that any prospective objectors for subsequent years will think twice about objecting at a higher level for fear of a similar or larger fine :evil:


Well... if noise is no longer classed as a public nuisance all residents are of course entitled to take their sound systems to the grounds of the Town Hall and TURN THEM ALL UP FULL :lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that the views of the public are totally ignored in all matters these days.


The problem is Peter, in most cases "the public" don't have a single voice on specific issues....indeed here on this Forum there are wide and varied views on virtually every topic, who's right, who's wrong, how would you come to a decision based on the range of opinions, because you won't please all of the people all of the time, indeed maybe pleasing some of the people some of the time is as good as it gets. :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you are saying Paul, (Neighbourhood Management springs to mind), BUT is it right that people who do NOT live in the area and probably haven't a clue what is being discussed, should make the situation seem trivial and noise levels non-existent?

The do's and don'ts of whether to hold the event is one thing, the consequences are another.

I suppose that the appeal costs are the thin end of the wedge. A deterrent to stop people questioning official decisions.


BEWARE folks, Big Brother is alive and kicking!!!


The "not listening" bit rolled out further is that the officers seem to have become a law unto themselves and don't even bother responding to legit groups anymore, yet they want the "Third Sector" to do more and more of their bidding.


Roll on the revolution. :twisted::evil::twisted::evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do, but I need the actual field details and contacts that Pedro has, I will then refer to these.


You need to look at Natural England's Magic maps (Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside) and their office for the North West is the Crewe Address on their website. You will find that the majority of the agricultural land in your Ward is registered under the Entry Level Stewardship Scheme - no wonder - it's money for old rope - especially if you can get away with cashing in on leasing your acres for a Pop Festival for 3 years without Natural England knowing anything about it !!!


Bearing in mind that much of your Ward is countryside who is responsible in WBC for their Biodiversity Duty under the 2006 NERC Act ??- I would like to know why our Council appears to have ignored the impact of Creamfields since the Act came into force - and of course the same applies to Halton BC.


Here is the official response for Pedro, and any others who are interested:


The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) introduced a duty for all public authorities to have regards to the conservation of biodiversity from October 2006. The duty applies to all public authorities, bodies, government, statutory undertakers and local authorities from County and District to Parish.

The Duty is set out in Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006 and it states:

?Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity? Local authorities have a key role to play in conserving biodiversity, through their role in:


o Developing and influencing local policies and strategies

o Planning and development control

o Owning and managing their estates

o Procurement

o Education, awareness raising and advisory functions.

DEFRA have emphasised that: ?The aim of this duty is to raise the profile and

visibility of biodiversity, to clarify and consolidate existing commitments with regard to biodiversity and to help stimulate a culture change so that biodiversity issues become a natural part of decision-making right across the public sector?.

The DEFRA guidance advises that biodiversity conservation should be viewed as a core component of sustainable development, which underpins economic development and prosperity and offers a range of quality of life benefits. The guidance stresses the importance of biodiversity in maintaining and supporting environmental processes, health and wellbeing, recreation, the economy, education, culture, sense of place and social inclusion.

The Government is currently reviewing the duty and how local authorities are implementing it as compliance is open to interpretation. The full duty can be viewed at: www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/biodiversity/index.htm

In relation to the Creamfields event this is licensed by Halton Borough Council and any conditions that are imposed through the license are monitored by them. To date there have been no reports to either Warrington Borough Councils Natural Environment Officer (Helen Lacy) or to Halton?s previous Nature Conservation Officer in relation to the events impact on either habitat or protected species. If any members of your parish have specific concerns they should report them to either Halton or Warrington Borough Councils officers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Paul - your tutorial on the 2006 NERC Act is appreciated but I think it would be true to say that neither of us had any inkling of this gem of legislation until a couple of months ago and I suspect that the majority of your fellow Borough Councillors and almost certainly all Parish Councillors and Clerks had never heard of the Act before mid-July last when I understand Warrington B.C and Halton B.C received a circular from Defra Biodiversity requesting participation in a survey on the FIRST THREE YEARS of the 2006 NERC Act. This circular was then sent by Borough Councils to Parish Councils. Perhaps you can tell us why Parish Councils in Warrington (and Halton) knew nothing of the new legislation for nigh on three years !!

Your interpretation of the NERC Act puts the cart before ther horse. There is an onus responsibility placed upon all tiers of local government (and other bodies) by the Act to conserve biodiversity and described as a BIODIVERSITY DUTY. It is a simple matter of fact that four Creamfields events in the idyllic rural location of Daresbury and Walton since 2006 have destroyed natural habitats and driven away wildlife from in and around land and ancient woodland. What else can be expected from all that goes with an annual pop festival -two weeks of construction, a weekend of 30,000 (and previously 50,000) revellers tramping over fields, camping, cars, buses, coaches and a further week of dismantling and delittering - not to mention any affect of noise levels on wildlife. Surely, under the NERC Act both Warrington and Halton BCs (and, had they known of their duty, Parish Councils of Daresbury, Hatton, Walton) should have been able to alert the Licensing Committee of Halton Council to the probable harm to biodiversity - NOT WAIT FOR SOME MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO POINT OUT THE DAMAGE. As far as I am aware, and you are in a position to check on this Paul, there has been no pre and post monitoring of biodiversity on land on and close to the Creamfields site over the four years of the event and WBC's Nature Conservation officer has not been asked to report on impact from the festival,

There does seem to be some over lapping of legislation and conflict of issues as between the 2003 Licensing Act and the 2006 NERC Act - whereby a Licensing Committee (as instructed by a unitary authority solicitor) can, and does, dismiss objections to a pop concert, on grounds of harm to biodiversity, as irrelevant ,and outside the scope of the Licensing objectives :x:x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Licence for Creamfields 2010 (same August Bank Holiday Weekend)

submitted 3 months earlier this year and heard by Halton BC last night. After having request for 3 years licence turned down last year the 3 years has been approved this time and with increase in attendance from 30.000 sell out last year to 40,000 this year and in 2011/12. Not sure what happende in 2008 but attendance was down to 25,000 against licence capacity for 40,000.


Objections to the 3 years came from local Parish Councils of Walton, Hatton, Daresbury and Moore but conscipuous by absence was Warrington BC who appear to have washed their hands of the event despite 40% of concert area being in Walton and far more Warrington persons living within 1.5 miles of the venue than in Halton. A costings cut back decision ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:roll::roll: Thanks Halton :roll:

I presume no-one will be appealing against this time it but it would have been nice if WBC had at least shown an interest eh. Maybe they couldn;t though as they are all 'raving' loonies who like to go dressed in lycra so their opinion would be biased :lol:


Joking aside I thought the land was to be put up for sale soon anyway as Mr G is 'allegidely' off to new pastures :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course they will have Sha if they need to..... an old covenant can be easily lifted years down the line if it 'agreed' by the two parties involved :wink:


In Waltons case I guess that is now between the current Mr G and WBC as the original parties involved will have passed over the responsilibilty to their ancestors and council successors in some way :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presumably Mr G agreed to lifting the covenant on his and neighbour's land for the first Creamfields - otherwise they wouldn't have been able to sell food and drink. We have same covenant wording in our deeds (as have all the properties from sale of the Daresbury Estate in 1941) but I doubt if Mr G would agree to a lifting of covenant from any of his neighbours who have been objecting to Creamfields since 2006. Anyway you have to feel sorry for Mr G at present time - poor soul has a lot on his plate - what with Daily Mail gossip column revealing the other woman (a "tale of two fillies" - you missed a scoop there Gary) and two men charged with growing 150 cannabis plants on one Mr G's South Cheshire farms - oh dear !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually feel sorry for the original Mr G who spent his life building his empire, and the Greenhall family reputation by contributing to the town, he must be rolling in his grave that it's all disintegrating as it is....very sad. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original Mr G wasn't from Warrington!


Which 'original' Mr G are you referring to as they go back many centuries :wink:


If the original 'original' Mr G wasn't even from Warrington then I aplaud him and many of his predecessors even more. :wink:


Many of the very old covenants have long since vanished, probably on purpose who knows, but some from the early 1900's (which probably contain similar wishes to that of the older ones) are slightly more accessible due to recording but even they are not easily found due to reluctance of current day holders to formally record them with Land Registry etc. :roll::evil:


One thing you can say about the older Greenalls though is that as major land owners in the area at the time they obviously had a deep set wish for ensuring that safeguards were put in place to protect their land and buildings at the time of sale or transfer to ensure that they were only ever used for the purpose intended.


And more often than not safeguarding the 'publics' interest was the number one priority 8)


They make fascinating reading as I have a few of them but as already said they can probably be easily overturned by new agreements made by current day parties based on modern day 'family' greed and a new 'need' ......plus money and false promisses :evil::roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...