Re: Barnoldswick Forces Memorial Gardens

[PanBiker]

The conveyance and the two transfer of land documents certainly do seem to fully comply with the extent of the highways plan posted earlier. Very interesting that the original drawing on the conveyance shows the through route from Park Street. If this was the case, would the rules governing the maintenance of highways as related earlier not apply to this also. It's clear to me anyway that the Highway Authorities original marking of the plot is correct and if a previous highway existed there with no legal stopping up in force surely a re-instated path is simply reverting to requirement?

[David Whipp]

When a highway is formally closed the freehold frontager can claim the half-width of the highway fronting his/her property. (This is called the doctrine of “ad medium filum”, I have learned.)

If the (phantom) extension of Park Street was stopped up properly, this wouldn’t have removed the highway status from the adjacent section of Mosley Street, as it would have been needed. The section of land on which the garage was built parallel to Mosley Street would have remained a highway... and the remaining pavement would have remained a pavement.

From the aerial picture in 1963, it looks like the front of Park Street and the extension of Mosley Street beyond number 52 Mosley Street wasn't made up at the time (it was still a street maintained at the expense of the frontagers and still a highway); it must have been adopted at a later date. The highway surveyors will have drawn up their adoption plan according to what was on the ground at that point?

It's interesting that the 1974 conveyance, which was carried out in the last few days that BUDC existed, shows the parallel garage pencilled in on the plan.

If the extension of Park Street to Kelbrook Road wasn't stopped up, it remains a highway and all the things that have been built on it (including the wall) are obstructing the highway...

[PanBiker]

That's how I read it, nothing to impede creating the path then. The wording of the conveyance is interesting as well, clause one says it all in this regard.

"That the council will so soon as may be convenient lay out the said plot of land as a garden or pleasure ground and permit the people of Barnoldswick at all times to enjoy the same without let or hindrance"

Creating another pathway to the gardens is not only supporting that requirement of the covenant but also re-instating the highway, benefits all round.

[Big Kev]

It all sounds good to me, keep up the good work .

[Stanley]

The legal position looks sound. The question is, will the objectors see it this way?

[Big Kev]

The legal position looks sound. The question is, will the objectors see it this way?

It depends on their grounds for objection really.

[David Whipp]

The people who own the garages' assertion that they own the land where the access emerges, and that this land is private, isn't supported by the documentary evidence in the deeds. If they don't accept that, even with the weight of evidence that's now come to light, they'll have to produce alternative evidence that supports their claim.

As for the objections put forward by Alan Tudor, these are more subjective. Where these arguments have been considered by a wider audience (on this site, at the town council, by Barnoldswick in Bloom), the balance of opinion has been strongly in favour of an access. At the meeting for residents, one nearby household argued strongly against (together with the Broughton family) and their were several nearby households in favour together with a neutral one.

It's doubtful, though, that the objectors will accept that they've lost the argument.

[Stanley]

From the report in BET this morning you're right. I don't see why this should be an attack on you as a councillor. This was not your personal decision but a democratic process. Sorting out the legalities is one matter but personal attacks on those involved adds nothing to the debate. It leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth. Such a pity......

[David Whipp]

I've not seen the Barlick and Earby yet, should I reach for my blood pressure pills?

I sent Will Cook a link to this thread so that he could get a more balanced view and try and avoid an adversarial report in the paper. In today's straightened times, the paper will never have space to publish the documentary evidence that's been posted on here. It's a shame if readers of the newspaper don't get to see the full facts.

[Big Kev]

It's doubtful, though, that the objectors will accept that they've lost the argument.

Probably not but it'll give them something to moan about for a bit. I do hope the yellow paint is cleaned up soon though, it looks horrible

[Stanley]

I thought it was a balanced report David but the headline was the accusation that you are 'railroading' the project which I thought was questionable.

[David Whipp]

I've paid my £1 and bought a Barlick and Earby for a change, as the Memorial Gardens story hasn't appeared on their website. The story sets out some of the objectors concerns. I'll respond to the various points in the article together with those raised elsewhere.

Far from ignoring the Broughton family's protests, I've researched the ownership of the Memorial Gardens land by going back into records from the 1930s to the 1970s including the minutes of Barnoldswick Urban District Council and various conveyances. As previously posted in this thread, in brief, these records show the land donated by Lilian Broughton didn't include the land where the access would be created.

Even if it was on land donated by Mrs Broughton the conveyance doesn't prevent the construction of an access.

The Broughtons claim their deeds show they own the land where the new access would be. Perhaps they should make them available so that people can judge the strength of their claim?

The Highway Authority have set out the boundary of the highway according to what is shown on both the old paper based plans and the current digital record. Since the Highway Authority marked the boundary of the adopted highway, aerial photos and legal records show that the land where the access would be created was actually part of an unadopted section of Park Street which extended to Kelbrook Road in the 1940s.

Julian Broughton says 'none of the residents around here want it'. This statement isn't supported by the emails and statements from residents on Park Street and Mosley Street who are in favour of an access.

Nuisance behaviour in the Gardens is being addressed by: taking out of use hidey holes and possible drinking dens with the new beds and carefully designed planting scheme; introducing lighting into the area; opening up views of the Gardens; and, if the access goes ahead, increasing legitimate use of the gardens and passive surveillance of the area by introducing through pedestrian traffic. This is what has been so successful at the War Memorial.

A new access would assist the police if they needed to attend the Memorial Gardens, as they could make an unobtrusive entrance to the area. At the moment, anyone up to mischief scrambles over the wall to get in or out of the gardens; the wall only stops honest folk.

A new access wouldn't increase problems on Park Street or Mosley Street. The work in the Gardens will make that area less of an ill-lit backwater so attractive to those carrying out anti-social activities.

Rather than increasing abuse of the gardens by inconsiderate dog walkers, a new access would deter those irresponsible enough to let their dogs roam loose in the, currently closed, area whilst they just stand at the gates waiting for Fido to return. A second access would require owners to keep better control of their dogs, in case they ran off.

Anyone using Mosley Street to drop off/pick up children attending the new school will use the side street at the end of Essex Street anyway.

I've listened carefully to the objections put forward and tried to address them. If there are any more reasons for objecting, lets hear them and see if they can be dealt with.

The area committee on Tuesday evening could veto the access. I hope people turn up to hear both sides of the argument.

[PanBiker]

Nicely summed up David and your report is exactly as I read all the historical documentary evidence that has been made available. If the objectors claim that they still own the land in direct contradiction to what the evidence supports they should produce proof to that effect forthwith. I cant understand why the thrust of the objections is focused on the negative rather than taking a more proactive stance and looking at the obvious benefits of the enhancements to the gardens.

[Big Kev]

I trust the area committee will see sense and not veto this. With regard to "school run" cars parking on Mosely St, in my experience I don't think that's close enough to the new school to cause an issue. I think Harrison St will bear the brunt of that.

[Big Kev]

Also, as you say, Julian Broughton's statement that nobody wants it is certainly incorrect. Alan Tudor's petition also appears to be flawed, the disclaimer that "not everyone was in" isn't correct, I do a lot of work at home and no one knocked on my door. Another Park Street resident has stated that if you weren't 100% against it you were avoided. In my opinion it is a small number of objectors who have "railroaded" the objection with a one sided argument. It'll be interesting to see the outcome.

[Stanley]

All this, though regrettable, looks like progress. Good luck with the meeting. I have no views about the access but if you look back have always believed that this is in part a personal attack which is wrong.

[David Whipp]

I don't think John or Julian Broughton are motivated by animosity, but that may be the case with others.

If I thought we were trampling over private land, I'd have never gone along with the proposed access at all. Having gone into the detail of land ownership in the area, I don't see how that could lawfully be the case, though.

[Thomo]

This seems to be fairly clear about right of way:-

[David Whipp]

I've now been back through the deeds and established the ownership of the land on which the Memorial Gardens now sits (and surrounding area) back to before 1873.

"The Park" and "New Laithe Estate" belonged to Henry Dean and his descendants throughout the period 1873 to 1933.

Henry Hewitt-Dean died (I think in 1931) and his personal representatives sold the northerly section of the site (adjacent to the side street at the end of Essex Street) to Collins and Collins in 1933. To the south, this parcel was bounded by the unadopted street of Park Street. Part of this parcel is the land on which 52 Mosley Street was subsequently built. Almost all of the remainder of this parcel was then acquired by Briggs and Duxbury and subsequently gifted to BUDC for the Memorial Gardens in 1947. A narrow section of land alongside Kelbrook Road wasn't bought by Briggs and Duxbury and this was the section identified by BUDC in 1948 as needing to be acquired from A Collins.

The personal representatives of Henry Hewitt-Dean sold a parcel of land to Clynce Edgar Phillips in May 1935. This included the parcel of land bought by Lillian Broughton in June 1939 extending south of Park Street (unadopted section from present day Park Street to Kelbrook Road). Mrs Broughton gifted a section of this land to BUDC in 1947. A narrow section of land between Mrs Broughton's acquisition and Kelbrook Road remained in the possesion of Mr Phillips. This is the second section of land identified by BUDC as being in need of acquisition in 1948.

So, the Broughton's have never owned any land north of a line extended from the kerb line on the southern side of Park Street. (Though they will have possessory title to the site of the garage they have erected on what was the highway of Park Street - but this is not registered with the Land Registry.)

Phew!

[Big Kev]

A great bit of sleuthing David, or should we be calling you Hercule now? .

[David Whipp]

I suspect Wendy would have done a much more thorough job...

We had a site visit by members of the area committee this afternoon.

I understand objectors have registered their wish to speak on the item.

[Stanley]

Good luck with it!

[David Whipp]

County council highway staff have responded to the petition from the objectors to the proposed access. This is the relevant paragraph from the email:

It is however worth stating at this point that the County Council would be unable to prevent the Town Council from creating a pedestrian access into the Memorial Gardens from Mosley Street. We are only able to object to new access from the public Highway if they require Planning Permission to be obtained as part of the consultation process relating to Planning Applications, although we do consider all requests for new vehicular accesses on the highway network and consider the implications for highway users with respect to road safety. With respect to your concerns regarding the potential conflict with vulnerable users of the Memorial Gardens and the adjacent garage access, I will raise this with the Town Council to ascertain if measures could be considered within the Memorial Gardens to remove these concerns i.e. a pedestrian guardrail to provide a chicane measure for example to prevent or deter children running directly onto Mosley Street.

I have pointed out that the unit in question hasn't been used at all for the past 15 years and prior to that was mainly used for storage - not for garaging a car.

The guardrail suggestion is something that's being considered.

[David Whipp]

Summer bedding planted out behind the new railings along Kelbrook Road.

[Big Kev]

A lot of the "objections" do appear to be either groundless or personal. From what I have heard the underlying objection is that certain local residents don't like the idea of school children walking past their houses. This is a personal observation and is based on hearsay. I may be wrong as I've had no input as an objector. Opening up the access would provide a direct route to the new crossing on Kelbrook Rd. Surely this is a good thing for road safety.