Re: Barnoldswick Forces Memorial Gardens

[David Whipp]

This is one of the two remaining plaques I rescued from the sensory garden in 2011.

[David Whipp]

All being well, the two new trees should be planted in the gardens today.

[David Whipp]

Planting one of the two new trees today.

[David Whipp]

The new trees were fastened down with a below ground system; three anchors were driven about a yard into the ground, these had a wire with a steel ring attached which sits just below the surface, a ratchet strap was then passed through the rings and over the rootball and tightened up. Neat.

[Stanley]

I hope it works and the vandals take a holiday. Strange how some people can't resist attacking a newly planted tree. I remember years ago when the Parish Council at Long Preston planted some trees on the verge. Almost all of them were broken off. They have survived and you can still identify which ones were broken.

[David Whipp]

We've had some bad experience with newly planted trees; one of the worst examples being the ones in Valley Gardens on the top level, almost all of which were broken off.

In choosing specimens for the Memorial Gardens, one of the considerations was the ability to resist vandalism when planted. The trees planted have thicker stems and are quite tall; if you didn't know, you'd struggle to tell that they were new ones.



They arrived on a low loader.

[Stanley]

Has anyone ever tried wrapping them with the sticky tape used to protect grafts? Put some on and a notice saying they had Magic Water in the glue so miscreants could be identified....

[David Whipp]

Last November; anyone know what the brown fungi is?

[Stanley]

Looks a bit like this which is about in Railway Street but not as bad as when I noted it about three years ago.

[David Whipp]

We took the opportunity of Saturday's Barnoldswick in Bloom stand at St George's Day to display the plans for the Memorial Gardens again.

Here's Jack Parsons talking to Lesley Gilbert about the scheme.

[David Whipp]

Work underway this morning breaking up concrete at the back of the gardens.

[David Whipp]

Taking out the wall at the front of the gardens. The wall will be replaced with railings so that people passing by can see the beds inside. The surface will be graded so that the level of the land at either side of the railings matches.

When they finished with the wall, the contractors began putting in the conduit for the electric cabling.

[Stanley]

Good weather for the works. You'll get a better job......

[Enfadado]

I notice there is no mention in the plans nor on this website of the path that the contractors Colin Braithwaite are building with tha intention of opening up the back wall of the gardens to give "access to people who want to enjoy the park" Scott Whalley of Engineering and Special projects says this was passed by Barnoldswick Town Council and West Craven Area Committee. How strange then that none of the councillors of both organisations that I have spoken to are aware of this "access to park" that has already been dug out and is ongoing now.
A back access will just provide a walk through for school kids, dog walkers (for you know what) and an escape route for the usual shenanagens of Friday and Saturday night. Please also be aware that this is a Memorial Garden and not a "park"
Also, there is no mention of the blind garden which is adjacent to the Memorial Garden and which has been left with the small low wall. Why is this?
I object strongly to a back access and shall make sure Mrs Broughton's wishes are respected.

[David Whipp]

Hi Enfadado.

As mentioned elsewhere on the site, there's a meeting for residents and interested parties at 7pm on Monday evening at the Rainhall Centre to discuss the access onto Mosely Street.

The suggestion to create an access came from some of the residents in the area as part of the Barlick in Bloom consultation on the work being carried out. When this came forward, I emailed round councillor colleagues to sound out opinions. We subsequently included an item in a leaflet to tell people that the access was being considered (with no negative response).

The access isn't in the original plans as it's a response to what people said about those plans.

The Barnoldswick in Bloom report back at the last area committee meeting was accepted without comment by councillors and funding approved for the BiB element of the scheme.

Experience at the War Memorial is that opening up the backwater has had a positive effect on reducing nuisance behaviour in that area. The presence of people passing through causes casual surveillance of the area and deters undesirable activity.

Mr Alan Tudor, who lives nearby, objects to the access for much the same reasons as you mention (that it will provide a bolthole for n'ere do wells to exit the gardens if the police approach from the front).

However, yobs already exit and access the gardens at this point by scrambling over the wall, so the undesirables already have a bolt hole – the wall just stops honest folk, including the police, from getting in or out that way. Donald Cock, who lives immediately next to the gardens and the new pedestrian access, and is the one most affected by activities in the gardens, has supported the proposal.

From the consultation that the town council did a couple of years ago, one of the recurring points mentioned by people was that they never went into the Memorial Gardens. The access would help address this and raise awareness of the existence and purpose of the gardens.

Planning permission for the access isn’t needed as the work is permitted development.

Contrary to what I thought, there’s no restrictive covenant about everyone having to be in favour of any changes which prevents the work being done. The only restrictive covenant applies to the southerly part of the gardens which states "Not to permit any building then or thereafter to be erected upon the said plot of land to be used as an Inn Public-house Beerhouse, Dyehouse Tinmans or Tallow Chandlers workshop or for any other noisy noisome or offensive trade or business or as a Club in which intoxicating liquors should be sold to members."

Retaining the low wall in the sensory garden is detailed on the plans which have been the subject of consultation. The wall is retained as the difference in levels from inside the garden and the grass verge is at its greatest at that point. Grading the levels out would create an odd slope with little or no benefit.

Surfacing and masonry work is to be carried out in the sensory garden area, with planting undertaken by Bloom volunteers as a second phase of volunteer work in the gardens.

[Stanley]

You're right about the through access at the War Memorial David. Apart from it being a useful thoroughfare it is being used as a rest area the seating is used frequently.

[David Whipp]

As the major part of the objection to an access on Mosely Street is that it'll make the police's job more difficult, I've emailed the local neighbourhood policing team to see if they have a view.

[Enfadado]

Nobody minds "honest folk" entering the Memorial Gardens but it is not a park, it is a Memorial and as there is a now a pelican crossing, a bus stop on both sides of the road and a lowered pavement on both sides of the front aspect then why spend more of the "honest folk's" money on what would become a more accessible dog toilet and a great big rubbish bin for schoolchildrens' left over takeaways? Once again people who live nowhere near are making decisions on something which is not going to affect them. I would also like to know how the covenant referred to can be viewed in full as small quotation out of context is not acceptable.

[David Whipp]

"Why spend money" on the Memorial Gardens?

Because it would be a poor act of remembrance if they were forgotten and left to rot even before 70 years have passed since the end of the second World War?

Surely, we're not so impoverished that we can forget the debt we owe to those who gave their lives?

The gardens are due some TLC which will hopefully set them up for at least a couple of decades; and the work is designed to reduce or remove the inappropriate behaviour that you're concerned about Enfadado.

And, if more people go into the gardens and perhaps reflect upon why they are there, that would be a good thing?

The paragraph included in my last but one post is the entirety of the restrictive covenant, which applies to the southern half of the gardens.

[plaques]

a great big rubbish bin for schoolchildrens' left over takeaways?

Surely a possible answer to this is to get the school involved with the Memorial Gardens as a project for this coming WW1 centenary year. This may give them some pride in the gardens rather than another area where kids must be kept out at all costs.

[Enfadado]

If you walk up the path to West Craven high school you will see how much pride they have in the daffodils planted there. These are not being destroyed by the proud ones but by the few who find it "big" to kick them to bits. Through access just gives them a better run at it and a better leg it route. Think how much it costs now to replace the daffodils on a through and open access and how much more damage would be caused if the Memorial was a through walkway.

[Stanley]

If we allow the actions of the irresponsible few to dictate enlightened projects like restoring the Memorial Gardens to a better condition we allow them to win and do not set a good example. The glass may be half full and not half empty.....

[David Whipp]

By and large, all the planting projects carried out through the Barlick in Bloom initiative have been respected and the amount of vandalism very low (tree planting is the one area where yobs have taken a toll).

At the meeting last night, Enfadodo's objections as posted on OGFB were strongly articulated by Alan Tudor and his partner. Mr Cock, who is closest to the gardens and proposed access onto Mosely Street, again stated that the access would reduce problems as far as he was concerned. Big Kev's email supporting the access was read out.

There was just one new issue raised at the meeting . This was from John and Julian Broughton whose family donated the land for the gardens and still own the land next to them.

They said that they own the land between the Memorial Gardens and Mosely Street and that an access would have to pass over their property. The access would interfere with the ramp to the adjacent garage which they rent out.

I pointed out that the plan from the Land Registry showed the Memorial Gardens having a frontage onto Mosely Street and that engineers who had drawn up the scheme and the contractors were confident that an access wouldn’t interfere with getting in and out of the garage.

The issue of whether the Memorial Gardens has frontage onto the highway on Mosely Street is to be discussed with the Broughtons.

[Enfadado]

I am posting this on behalf of an elderly neighbour who has tried to register but does not receive the activation email. These are her words.
I am 78 years old and have lived in Barlick since birth. I am extremely saddened to see all the confrontation going on at the moment over the gardens. I fondly remember Mrs Broughton and think we should all bear in mind her intentions, her wishes and the fact that her family should be thanked for their contribution and not have to fight the council to protect their inheritance.
Shame on you David Whipp, you should be apologusing to Mr Broughton and his family not causing him great sorrow.
Thank you
Edith

[plaques]

Just to continue the theme of getting the 'kids' involved. Here is a picture of the "Peace Garden" in Brierfield centre. So far its totally unmolested. Are we saying the kids in Brierfield are better behaved than those in Barlick?