Re: Barnoldswick Forces Memorial Gardens

[Big Kev]

Is there currently a dispute over where the boundary is?

[David Whipp]

I think the owners of the garages are disputing what is adopted highway. They didn't accept what officials from Pendle Council said about the boundary of the highway, so the Highway Authority were asked to mark it out. In the picture below, the white line denotes the boundary of adopted highway as marked by highway staff; the yellow markings are as described by Kev.



A petition has been collected by Mr Alan Tudor. I've asked for this to be discussed at the next meeting of Pendle Council's West Craven Area Committee when it meets on 1st July.

[PanBiker]

It's a while since the adoption plans were posted so I have attached the section in question here. I have rotated it 180 degrees from the original so that it is in the same orientation as the photographs taken from Mosley Street.

The adopted area is shown in pink

Adoption.jpg

[Big Kev]

It's certainly opened a can of worms.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding, of the reasoning behind opening the access, is to stop anti social behaviour in the gardens. I believe this to be based on evidence of similar works at the war memorial by the co op.
With regard to anti social behaviour, in the gardens, personally I have never witnessed this but, I have read that it does happen.
A couple of questions now; are the people, opposing the access, the same people who are affected by the anti social behaviour,
On what basis are the objections being made?

Whilst I am in favour of the access and I presented my reasons by email, at the first meeting this was discussed at, I have yet to hear any reason to change my mind. The only reason I am aware of a petition is that it has been mentioned on this site, no one has knocked at my door to put forward their reasons for objecting.

At the end of the day I'm not bothered whether the access is opened up or not, at present I'm in favour of it.

[Stanley]

Kev is right, this is a classic 'can of worms'..... Very sad...

[Big Kev]

With regard to my post above; does anyone know the reason for such strong objection? I seem to be missing something somewhere, any petition or lobby group seem to be passing me by.

[Stanley]

Let sleeping dogs lie Kev. Who can guess what the root of any objection is. You've got better things to do and it will all come out in the wash eventually.

[David Whipp]

The scroll presented to Barnoldswick Urban District Council by the Barnoldswick Forces Memorial Committee on 19th August 1951.

[Big Kev]

Let sleeping dogs lie Kev. Who can guess what the root of any objection is. You've got better things to do and it will all come out in the wash eventually.

Probably best, I am curious though

[Tizer]

I don't live in Barlick and therefore don't have a view on this specific case but I would make a general comment. One of the reasons we see more vandalism and anti-social behaviour these days is because public spaces in towns are less frequented - we're at home watching TV or driving about in our cars or at the supermarket etc. With less people about there is more opportunity for bad behaviour and criminal activity. The best way to prevent anti-social behaviour is to encourage more ordinary folk to use the public spaces, and that means providing maximum access. Minimising access provides ideal conditions for bad behaviour.

[David Whipp]

Thanks Tiz.

I think you've neatly summed up the argument in favour.

[Stanley]

I agree. My experience is that best security is visibility and population of the site. Vandals thrive on shadows and deserted locations.

[David Whipp]

1940's Aerial Photo - Memorial Gardens.pdf

The pdf shows the land where the Memorial Gardens are now in the 1940s. It shows a path or track to Kelbrook Road at the gable end of 52 Mosley Street (where the proposed opening in the wall would be).

Will Cook has phoned me this afternoon and asked me to 'respond' to a suggestion from an objector that the suggested access is being 'railroaded through'.

[Big Kev]

"Railroaded through" wouldn't be the terminology I'd use, seems to be taking forever. We're stuck with graffiti all over the road and a fenced off garden. I'm still unaware of the basis for objection though, there were a few comments made on Facebook about it last week. Someone had posted that "The offer of signing or Not signing the petition was only offered to those who 100% agreed with the veiws of the couple offering the petition" so that would explain why no one knocked on my door. The article is here https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =1&theater

Surely evidence of an existing path should hurry things along?

[David Whipp]

Kev, the contractors are still waiting for the stone; hope to know tomorrow when this will be on site; at present, there's no delay to the scheme because of the access objections.

The petition from objectors will be considered at the area committee next Tuesday evening amongst a lengthy agenda (7pm at the Rainhall Centre).

Having read through the minutes of Barnoldswick Urban District Council from 1945, the aerial photo is very interesting. There was a lot going on along Kelbrook Road in the late 1940s and early '50s. (In fact, a lot going on with the Urban District Council - it's a delight to see what they were responsible for and were achieving.)

There were two benefactors who gifted land; Mrs Broughton and Briggs and Duxbury Ltd. And the BUDC minutes record that land also needed to be acquired from a Mr A Collins and Mr E Phillips. The records suggest that the area of land gifted by Mrs Broughton was the southern part of the Memorial Gardens area (not the section where the access would be created).

(Must try harder with Facebook...)

[Big Kev]

There were two benefactors who gifted land; Mrs Broughton and Briggs and Duxbury Ltd. And the BUDC minutes record that land also needed to be acquired from a Mr A Collins and Mr E Phillips. The records suggest that the area of land gifted by Mrs Broughton was the southern part of the Memorial Gardens area (not the section where the access would be created).

That's interesting, so the yellow paint all over the road could well be a mistake?

[Thomo]

I think that it is very sad that the matter of refurbishing the Memorial Gardens should create so much upheaval. This is something that needs to be done, and I am sure that they who have to sort out the manner of the task will do their best to achieve a satisfactory outcome, for all. Something similar occurred when the main War Memorial area was to be restructured, this involved the relocation of the recycling site, this also had its opponents. Personal preferences sometimes have to be set aside for the benefit of the majority, and when something is generously given to a Town, its upkeep and development should be respected by all.

[David Whipp]

Highways are not affected by the ownership of the land that they cross.

In some instances, the highway authority may own the land on which the highway passes. For instance where a new road has been built or widened and the highway authority have purchased the land to construct the road.

For most people in Barlick, this won't be the case. The deeds of people's houses will show that they own the land to the centreline of the highway they front onto. The highway status of the land is on top of this ownership. Designation of a highway means that people have a right to pass over the road or path. Depending on the status of the highway (paths, bridleways etc) this right may be on foot, on a horse or in a vehicle.

If there were no further need for a highway, it could be 'stopped up'. This is a legal proceedure in the courts which could remove highway designation. It's not often that this happens (I can remember one case in 30 years in Barlick; a former side street off Clifford Street which was redundant. Interestingly, we've got another one coming along off Skipton Road). One of the reasons for the rarity is that public utilities have powers to put their services in the highway; perhaps you no longer need the road to pass over, but there's likely to be shed loads of stuff under the surface like wires, pipes and drains and the statutory undertakers will object to a stopping up order.

Unless a highway is stopped up, 'once a highway, always a highway' is the maxim.

In the case of the area at the bottom of Park Street, the plan of the adopted highway shows that it extends to the area defined by the white line. The highway authority have a legal duty to ensure that such a highway is kept free from obstruction. The land occupied by the Memorial Gardens extends to the boundary of the highway. Hence, the land has a frontage onto the adopted highway, so if an opening was created, people can pass on and off the highway onto a path provided by the land owner.

The Broughtons may have title to the land where the pavement is, though I think this is questionable. However, the pavement in question is a highway - whoever owns it. If people were prevented from using such a highway, the highway authority are required by law to take action to keep it open.

Thomo: thanks for your comments, which I agree with. I'd prefer that everyone was likeminded.

[David Whipp]

We had the monthly meeting of Barnoldswick's Bloom group this evening.

It was as a result of the Bloom group's consultation on the Memorial Gardens scheme that the suggestion of the new access came about.

One of the non-councillor members of the group had attended the residents' meeting that discussed the proposal and there was a report back on what was happening in terms of objections and possible legal challenges.

After a thorough discussion of the pros and cons, the group agreed to reaffirm its support for creating the new access.

[Stanley]

The area in 1963. Click to enlarge.

[David Whipp]

Thanks Stanley.

That's a very useful photo. Please can I include it in a short report I'm putting together about the Memorial Gardens?

In terms of the current discussions, the photo shows an L shaped path running in front of the small raised bed to the front of the right hand end of the Loggia. The path runs through to the public conveniences which were added to the original Memorial Gardens scheme part way through the project. (There's much discussion by BUDC about whether to have these toilets - and public conveniences generally. Interesting given the current countrywide closure of conveniences apart from where towns like Barlick are prepared to take them on.)

Returning to the path, the present proposal is to recreate the path, more or less as pictured except for a narrow strip against the boundary wall of 52 Mosley Street which will be used to plant a hedge. Parts of the surface of the old path could still be seen before the work started.

Behind the Loggia, the narrow strip of land on which the Broughtons built garages can be seen tapering to a point on the back wall of the Loggia, though the Loggia hides the precise point at which it does so from from this angle.

There's lots of more general information that can be drawn from the picture; the four trees in the Gardens weren't planted as part of the original scheme and the floral beds were originally more extensive.

More general still is the contrast with the number of cars today - I can only see a handful in the picture.

[Stanley]

Of course you can. Here's the best enlargement I can get of the actual path. Looks as though it opens on to the street at the back side.

[David Whipp]

Fresh information arrived this afternoon from the deed packet held by Pendle Council for the Memorial Gardens area.

memorial garden Broughton conveyance.pdf

As suspected, the land gifted by Mrs Broughton was the Southerly part of the current Memorial Gardens (which is tinted pink on the Land Registry record previously posted). The boundary of this land is in line with the kerb edge on the Southern side of Park Street.

What is perhaps surprising is that the conveyance shows Park Street carrying on straight through to Kelbrook Road as a full width street matching the section of Park Street as it exists today. This fits in with the 1940s aerial photo showing a track across the land where the Memorial Gardens was subsequently created.

Looking at the 1963 aerial photo, the land Mrs Broughton gifted ended just before the second pillar to the north of the semi-circular section of the Loggia.

20 odd years after the land was gifted by Mrs Broughton, the small section remaining unused on Mosley Street to the rear of the Gardens was conveyed to H Broughton and Sons by BUDC. (This is the land directly opposite the gable of the Southerly Park Street terrace.)

Other news is that it's going to be the back end of July before the cut stone is ready...

[David Whipp]

Final pieces of the puzzle now fitting into place.

The parcels of land conveyed to the Broughtons in 1968 and 1974 didn't include the land which is where the new access would come out.

Here are the deed plans of the transfers from 1968...

0854_001.pdf

[David Whipp]

And 1974.

0855_001.pdf