Re: Barnoldswick Forces Memorial Gardens

Post by **David Whipp** » 03 Jun 2014, 08:38

Thanks Enfadado.

There appears to be a general consensus that the work on the Memorial Gardens is generally welcomed and that an access onto Mosely Street is supported by most people, including people directly affected by the plans.

As discussed at the meeting last night, the pedestrian access would not prevent the use of the garage owned by the Broughton family.

I've looked again this morning, and the proposed access point emerges onto the pavement on Mosely Street; this is in accordance with the plan of the Memorial Gardens held by the Land Registry.

I trust that you'll let your neighbour know about the correct situation?

Post by **David Whipp** » 03 Jun 2014, 09:02

Have just noticed Plaques' post on the previous page, thanks P.

Please can I make a general point about the Memorial Gardens?

Through being a Barnoldswick representative, I'm one of the people with the responsibility for the time being of seeing that they continue to serve the purpose they were created for.

I believe that it is right that investment is being put in to restore the crumbling elements within the gardens and encourage townsfolk to use the space and be aware of why they were provided.

I understand that not everyone shares my belief in the strength of community and some people tend to highlight negative aspects of issues.

I hope though that my outlook is closer to that of the people who created the Memorial Gardens in the first place.

Enfadado · Post by **Enfadado** » 03 Jun 2014, 09:16

As you say that you have looked again this morning I fail to understand why you can not tell the difference between the pavement and the concrete ramp which is the entrance to Mr Broughton's garage. The back wall that you refer to is directly next to the concrete ramp and not the pavement as you mention.
As far as I am aware also, I am informed by friends that there was no general welcome to the proposed plans at last night's meeting and in your previous posting you do not mention all the people who objected to the plans including the Broughton family, the owners of the land.
I am quite happy to act as a spokesperson for those who are not able to access this site and who may wish to object but do not have the means to do so.
I am also aware that there is a meeting tonight of the West Craven Area Committe of which David Whipp is also the Chairman and I will be forwarding some objection in preparation for tonight's meeting.

Post by **David Whipp** » 03 Jun 2014, 10:10

At some point, a vehicle crossover has been constructed to access the garage (with a concrete construction). This doesn't stop it being a pavement and part of the highway. (Look at the thousands of drives and garages in Barnoldswick which are accessed over pavements.)

Enfadado · Post by **Enfadado** » 03 Jun 2014, 10:59

It still doesn't alter the fact that he has to have access to his garage. Please note also that you may find some people who originally approved of the plan have now changed their mind. Not for me to tell you who.

DonDon · Post by **DonDon** » 03 Jun 2014, 11:09

I would like also to jump in here and agree with Edith who is a much loved resident of the town. I have been here since the end of the second world war and Barlick has my heart but I am disgusted at the things that David Whipp is saying. A Memorial is exactly that, a Memorial, and not something to be turned into a park or a footpath or anything other than somewhere for people to sit quietly and think about our lost ones (from all countries)
Please listen to the people with your heart Mr Whipp, we are shouting loudly enough aren't we?

Post by **David Whipp** » 03 Jun 2014, 12:32

Thanks Enfadado and DonDon.

Access to the garage would not be prevented by the work.

I'm sorry that you are disgusted by the things I am saying; what aspect of the comments I've made on this topic are you disgusted by?

It's by listening to what people have said over the last three years that we have the current scheme being carried out.

First of all, there was a consultation about the possibility of moving the War Memorial to the Memorial Gardens. Although this had a lot of support from the people who responded to the consultation, there were good reasons why the War Memorial should be kept in its current location. That consultation led to the work being carried out at the town centre site over the last couple of years. A notable aspect of the work was opening up the War Memorial area so that it ceased to be a backwater and became a route which people use on a regular basis. This has helped reduce nuisance activity in the War Memorial area and increased the number of people paying attention to the memorial itself.

The plans for the Memorial Gardens have had a four day consultation event earlier this year and were also on display at the St George's Day event in April. As a result, the Barnoldswick in Bloom group came forward with proposals for the planting and for the access onto Mosely Street. This was put forward by residents who live in the area.

Having listened to what people had said, the suggestion of having a pedestrian access onto Mosely Street was publicised in a leaflet which went to all the households in Barnoldswick a month ago. This resulted in precisely no (zero) objections.

When scores of households in the immediate vicinity were invited to a special meeting to discuss the access, of the households that attended, only one voiced strong opposition to the proposal.

It seems that Endadado and DonDon (why don't people use their real names?!), want to have a go at me about this. Please can I point out that it's not my proposal; it's come from people who live in the area and folk who care about the Memorial Gardens and are prepared to roll their sleeves up and do something positive to improve them.

I hope being shouted at doesn't put them off putting time and energy into this community scheme.

DonDon · Post by **DonDon** » 03 Jun 2014, 13:31

People do not use their real names on this website because they do not want to be confronted by people who are not in agreement with them as happened to a neighbour whose name you gave recently on this website even though he has never posted on it. I myself live in the vicinity of the Memorial Gardens but am housebound and I do not want the same occurrence of a huge, drunk, foul mouthed aggressive man battering on my door at 11.30 at night because he has seen my name on this website.
The meeting you refer to last night had more than one strong objection, I am informed there were at least five so perhaps they were not strong enough to be mentioned. You do mention though the many people in favour of the proposed back access even though at the meeting there were only two nearby residents in favour and one of them was submitted in writing.
That is also the basis for my being disgusted with what you say as you either disregard or dispute what people say if they do not agree with your proposals. The so called chance to object was practically non existent unless you read between the lines of your Focus newsletter. It was not clear enough, work had already started anyway and I don't know where all these people are that are in favour because they certainly don't live on my street.
Stop arguing with people and as I said before, draw breath and listen. I myself am not strong enough to cope with all this conflict but my friends and neighbours will continue to object

Post by **David Whipp** » 03 Jun 2014, 15:03

Thanks DonDon.

I've referred to people who have openly given their views.

Referring to last night's meeting, of the nearby residents invited, there were two people from one household who strongly objected to the access; one person from another house who did not object to the access and preferred it to people climbing over the wall. Of the other two residents present, one was non committal and the other was in agreement with the access. As reported previously, John and Julian said that the access would have to pass over their land. One email in support of the access from a resident was reported at the meeting. A further email supporting the access, with a suggestion about improving it, was received from a resident after the meeting began.

Please can I point out that the access is not my proposal, as you state.

I fully accept that there is generally more than one perspective on an issue. Debating matters involves listening to both (or all) sides of the discussion. Addressing incorrect statements is part of that process.

DonDon · Post by **DonDon** » 03 Jun 2014, 19:55

You have your facts wrong, the two people you refer to are not from the same household. The other person you mention is still an objector but felt intimidated by the overwhelming prescence of your councillors and one of the persons in favour has apparently changed their mind.. With reference to any subsequent persons in favour then any subsequent not in favours would have to be taken into fair account also.
To make the residents who are objecting feel intimidated is not the way to be fair and I am told that supposed hold on the back access has nit happened, in fact it has now acquired a dug out path and a kerb.
Nice to know you just carry on regardless Mr Whipp.

Post by **David Whipp** » 03 Jun 2014, 21:39

Thanks DonDon.

If the two people I'm referring to aren't from the same household, where does one of them live? Not on Park Street presumably? In which case, not an immediate resident?

Post by **Stanley** » 04 Jun 2014, 03:36

Reading through all this I can't help wondering why anyone would want to be a councillor. It seems to me that the TC is trying to improve an aspect of the town and getting flak for it. I suppose this is democracy but putting my moderator's hat on, please recognise that it is neither polite nor good manners to accuse anyone of disgusting behaviour.
It's a pity that a totally laudable attempt to renovate the gardens is generating so much heat.... Anyone who is not directly connected with the gardens (like me) could be forgiven for thinking that the root of this thread is more an attack on David Whipp than a principled objection.

Post by **David Whipp** » 04 Jun 2014, 06:48

Thanks Stanley. Noted.

Just to report that examination of the adopted highway plan confirms that the access would come out onto the (highway) pavement on Mosely Street. I don't know how I can post a pdf on the site or I'd put it on here.

The issue of the access wasn't raised at last night's area committee. Amongst lots of other things, it's on the agenda for tonight's meeting of Barnoldswick Town Council; Rainhall Centre, 7pm start.

Post by **Wendyf** » 04 Jun 2014, 07:01

Below the reply box there is a tab labelled "upload attachment" that should do it David.

Post by **David Whipp** » 04 Jun 2014, 07:10

Adoption Plans Mosely Street.pdf

The attachment shows the adopted highway, shaded pink.

Next to 52 Mosely Street is a section of the Memorial Gardens which fronts directly onto the (adopted) pavement. This is where the pedestrian access would be created.

Post by **David Whipp** » 04 Jun 2014, 07:13

0651_001.pdf

Thanks Wendy; a useful new skill.

Here's the extract from the Land Registry Records.

DonDon · Post by **DonDon** » 04 Jun 2014, 07:45

Are you saying that only nearby residents can object but anybody from all barlick can make proposals? If that is the case I could propose plenty of ideas for our young peiple tto enjoy in the some areas of Barnoldawick.
As the issue of naming peopleaa on this waebsite has not been addressed I can only confirm that the two people you mention are nearby residents, very near in fact and therefore their objections are very relevant.
I am going in hospital for hopefully only a few days but as the work hows no sign of honouring peoples objections, no doubt I will return to an ugly tarmac path and will have to be forced to ring the police again on Friday and Saturday nights because nobody had the common sense to make it an exclusion zone especially with the alcohol available nearby. Remember Clough Park?

DonDon · Post by **DonDon** » 04 Jun 2014, 07:54

Please excuse bad spelling previously; trying to do this myself and bit shakey today,must try and calm down and the thought of the trouble to come terrifies me. Must go now.

Post by **David Whipp** » 04 Jun 2014, 09:02

Thanks DonDon.

As discussed at length at the open meeting on Monday evening, the consensus of most people who have discussed this is that the changes at the Memorial Gardens will lead to a reduction in the nuisance behaviour in that area. The introduction of through footfall will help deter such activity - not encourage it. This is the experience of what has actually happened elsewhere in Barnoldswick (eg the War Memorial).

Quite unrelated to any problems at the Memorial Gardens, there has been a lot of anti-social behaviour centred on a property on Park Road which is at the back of Park Street. Several arrests were made in the vicinity of this property a few weeks ago during an appalling Friday night. Residents affected by this behaviour are rightly concerned about these activities.

Together with the local policing team, I met with residents shortly after the Friday night arrests. An action plan is in place to deal with the issues and dealing with the problem is a priority for the police.

At the meeting on Monday, an attempt was made to link the problems associated with the property on Park Road with the Memorial Gardens. At the meeting it was accepted that this was not the case.

We need to be careful that activities at two separate locations are not being confused.

Post by **Big Kev** » 04 Jun 2014, 09:43

I find it ridiculous that making access easier is causing so many issues. Do the "objectors" really believe that not making access easier will restrict the amount of "undesireables" in the area? Are these "undesireables" an increasing group? How many of them are there? Where are they currently hiding while the Memorial Gardens are fenced off for refurbishment?

I appear to miss all this "undesireable" activity. Apart from the incident on Park Road a couple of weeks ago (I missed that one too) where and when is this happening exactly? I've lived on Park Street for just over 3 years and, apart from the occassional party on Moseley Street, have found it very quiet.

Enfadado · Post by **Enfadado** » 04 Jun 2014, 09:53

Just taken DonDon to hospital and am very concerned to see the state she is now in regarding what she fears is to come. The incident you refer to regarding the property on Park Road is unrelated to the Gardens but she has put up with years of problems coming from the Gardens. Nobody will want to walk through those gardens after 10 pm which is when the parties kick off and even though I am a big bloke, I would not want to challenge the swearing, spitting, drunk or drugged youths even by just walking through the gardens. I would not want my daughter and grandchildren who live on Harrison street to walk through there either at night time as even walking on the front path up to the garage invites abuse from them. Back access would be just an escape route if the police arrived and please be aware that I am not against honest people enjoying the Memorial Gardens for their intended purpose, a lovely pretty quiet place to relax with a safe and controlled access for children. Of course at different times of the day there are different types of users so it is highly unlikely that families would visit there after 10 pm or that the drinking and whatever parties would be held during the day.
One thing I would like to say also is that there have been physical threats made against some people who have objected (police informed) and that is another thing that is upsetting the lovely DonDon. I think the situation needs to be resolved calmly and people's feelings treated with genuine concern
Safety and enjoyment for users and residents is paramount.

Enfadado · Post by **Enfadado** » 04 Jun 2014, 09:58

Just noticed Big Kev's post and would like to let him know that at the moment the groups are currently partying in the vicinity of Butts, nearest supermarket being One Stop on Church Street. Not to worry, they will return to a nicer setting once it is finished and the garage is handier for them.

Post by **Big Kev** » 04 Jun 2014, 10:07

Enfadado wrote:Just noticed Big Kev's post and would like to let him know that at the moment the groups are currently partying in the vicinity of Butts, nearest supermarket being One Stop on Church Street. Not to worry, they will return to a nicer setting once it is finished and the garage is handier for them.

I will have to make a point of going there after 10pm to see for myself, Butts isn't somewhere I normally frequent of an evening.

Post by **PanBiker** » 04 Jun 2014, 10:49

There seems to be a lot of supposition being made by the objectors to the refurbishment plan. This appears to be based on past experience and usage of the gardens. As I understand it a lot of the nuisance emanated from the fact that the site used to have a covered loggia which was used as a shelter and provided a convenient gathering place for youngsters who believe they have nothing better to do. This has now been removed of course and the current refurbishment of the site can only help to further enhance the site.

The through route may well have the same effect for reasons mentioned in other posts to the area around the war memorial which has been considerably enhanced by opening it up and a general tidy of the site. Members who have been on the site a little longer will know of my association with that project and there are threads on the site that document the last few years of activity for the towns site of annual remembrance, the additions of the extra names and how we have arrived at that corner of the town that we can justifiably be proud of, I hasten to add with considerable support from the Town Council and West Craven Area Committee.

Any issues with unlawful behaviour whether by nuisance, drink or drugs is the responsibility of the police. Are any of the objectors suggesting that the garage is operating outside of it's licensing conditions by supplying alcohol to minors? If that is the case, again it is the role of the police to deal with it and certainly has nothing to do with the Town Council.

I would ask the objectors also to put forward an alternative plan for the site which would include it's continued use as a memorial area and guarantee freedom from nuisance if they have one. It would have been better of course if this had been done during the consultation process but I would still ask what is the alternative.

Come on folks, get real, this is a pro-active enhancement and should be welcomed.

Any incidence of nuisance however caused or driven should be dealt with by the appropriate authority IF they manifest again in the future.

Post by **Big Kev** » 04 Jun 2014, 11:03

Well said, Ian. I consider myself to live very close to the gardens, and have done for just over 3 years. I am still to find these gangs of marauding "undesirables".