Author |
Topic |
|
Doc
Keeper of the Scrolls
2010 Posts
|
|
Posted -
07/04/2004
:
20:00
|
Valley Gardens is a small local park on Gisburn Road in Barnoldswick. It is close to the centre of the town and has pleasant wooded walkways along the side of Butts Beck.
Valley Gardens was once just another small open space. Then, with the superb activities of a local businesswoman together with enthusiastic members of the public, the park was transformed into the exciting green-space we have today.
Beginning in 1998, the active Valley Gardens Working Group soon cleaned up the park. An educational arboretum was planted, a pond dipping area was created and interesting tree logs (to show young children how trees grow) were added. Youngsters can play in the nearby playground or on the new Pirate Ship.
The future of Valley Gardens is bright with the possibility of future fairs and events supported by the Working Group and local schools. Valley Gardens stands as a proud example of the Council and the public working together to make things better.
Valley Gardens is situated on Gisburn Road (B 6251).
TTFN - Doc
Due to the current economic climate, the light at the end of the tunnel has now been switched off. Click here to make a donation and help support this site and keep it advert free
|
|
Replies |
Author |
|
|
Cathy
|
Posted - 08/06/2005 : 08:53
I've noticed that a lot of male actors are short....even my Mel (Gibson of course), I imagine he would still tower over me though so it doesn't matter.
All thru the fields and meadows gay .... Enjoy Take Care...Cathy |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 11/06/2005 : 05:49
I see the question of a new Gospel Hall has reared its head again in Valley Gardens. The last proposal for a two storey structure to replace the present wooden shed was thrown out but I think they may get away with the new design. Lots of opposition to it still.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Marcia
|
Posted - 13/06/2005 : 10:11
Seeing as they have been there 50 years, only have 40 regular churchgoers, the hall is used for community purposes as well as church, and the rebuild is only being proposed because the current *hut* doesn't meet any present regulations (and is clearly dilapidated) I think it's entirely fair that they get to build a new structure. The new design sounds okay to me and I must admit I find the opposition on the grounds of the fact that a new mission will suddenly cause lots of speeding traffic and gridlock in the surrounding streets highly improbable.
(I say this as someone who lives in a house that faces on to Valley Gardens).
- Marcia Allass
(http://www.sequentialtart.com) |
Marcia
|
Posted - 13/06/2005 : 10:16
The Fun Day in Valley Gardens was indeed a lot of fun - there was a very good turnout despite the fact that it looked like rain early on. Luckily the sun came out, and plenty of families with kids turned up - there seemed to be a good turnout for the face-painter, the climbing wall and the merry-go-round. A lot of people built and made bird-boxes as well from what I saw.
I rattled the collection bucket and walked the dog around - he was loving the sun and and sharing a Slater's ice-cream cone with me :)
- Marcia Allass
(http://www.sequentialtart.com) |
Callunna
Revolving Grey Blob
3044 Posts
|
|
Posted - 13/06/2005 : 10:44
Marcia - that's a good point about the Gospel Hall. So long as the building isn't an ugly concrete box I can't see why anyone has a problem. They do make a positive contribution to the community in more ways than just religious activities, and let's face it, th'ut isn't the most aesthetically pleasing structure in Barlick and being wooden I imagine it's a bit of a fire hazard too. Like Fernbank Mill...
=================== www.sheldrickrose.co.ukwww.bernulf.co.ukwww.bernulfsplace.co.uk |
Marcia
|
Posted - 13/06/2005 : 10:58
Frankly I think some people will complain whatever the Mission Hall propose in the way of design. That's just the way things are.
- Marcia Allass
(http://www.sequentialtart.com) |
Ringo
Site Administrator
3793 Posts
|
|
Posted - 14/06/2005 : 08:45
As far as I know the whole triangular piece of land that includes the Gospel Mission and the playarea used to be owned by Briggs and Duxbury but they gave part to the Church and the rest to the council in the 50's on the understanding that the council would maintain the road up Butts(which is still full of potholes 50 years on)
|
Callunna
Revolving Grey Blob
3044 Posts
|
|
Posted - 14/06/2005 : 10:12
Ringo, that's a VERY interesting piece of info. The potholes are a disgrace - not to mention dangerous because it makes it very difficult for a pedestrian to negotiate that bit of road - dodging craters and erratically driven cars. I always assumed it was the responsibility of Briggs & Duxbury, but in the light of your comment I think I'll ask our esteemed councillors why nothing has been done.No doubt they'll say it isn't their problem, but if we could do some digging (not literally!) and find out exactly what was arranged 50 years ago then we might get a result. I suspect, however, that the council will claim they've mended the part of the road that's officially theirs and that B&G owns the rough bit. Also, in a perverse way, the potholes do prevent speeding cars so maybe it's a cheap alternative to installing a 'sleeping policeman'. I'm sure a compromise could be reached somehow - even if it was to install a pedestrian pathway/pavement. Anyone else got any suggestions?
=================== www.sheldrickrose.co.ukwww.bernulf.co.ukwww.bernulfsplace.co.uk |
Marcia
|
Posted - 14/06/2005 : 10:13
You'll need to establish which council owns the land, Cally - it could be the Borough or the County - it's unlikely to be the Town Council I would think.
- Marcia Allass
(http://www.sequentialtart.com) |
Callunna
Revolving Grey Blob
3044 Posts
|
|
Posted - 14/06/2005 : 10:29
I've now emailed a local councillor and asked the question.
=================== www.sheldrickrose.co.ukwww.bernulf.co.ukwww.bernulfsplace.co.uk |
Callunna
Revolving Grey Blob
3044 Posts
|
|
Posted - 14/06/2005 : 16:01
And here's the reply, reprinted with permission:=============================== Although a public highway (people can pass freely over it), in legal terms,
it is a 'Private Street'; that is maintained at private expense (rather than
the public purse). The landowners of adjacent property are the 'street
managers' and are responsible for keeping the street in good order. For the road to be 'adopted' and become maintainable at public expense it
has to be 'made up' to an adoptable standard. Usually the frontagers have to
pay for this work. It's rare for residents/property owners to agree to share
the cost of such work, but the 'highways authority' can undertake the work
and recover most of the cost as long as a legal process is followed.
Normally the cost is 'apportioned' according to the length of property that
abuts the road. Barlick had lots of 'unadopted' streets when I was first elected. One of my
first successful campaigns was to get back Railway Street made up (I had to
convince the 'powers that be' that the back street was equivalent to that
row's 'front' and the residents that it was it was worth paying for). Since
then I've been involved in getting dozens done up in the town. I had a do about getting the Butts road surfaced and adopted several years
ago. We had used the 'Private Streets' legislation to get the Taylor Street
steps repaired and adopted. Carlsons had very generously met an elderly
resident's costs as well as their own. I thought they might be willing to
dib in to get Butts done as well. However, they'd fallen on hard times and
wouldn't chip in. B&D didn't have the cash to pay either. Residents on
Taylor Street (some of whom were still paying off the cost of having their
front street made up) say no advantage to them and were unwilling to pay for
surfacing the street that their back garden 'fronts' onto. There were also
doubts about making the road faster and more attractive as a rat run. I think it was around this time that Arthur Duxbury said that BUDC had
surfaced the road at some point. If so, there was a chance that the road had
become 'adopted by repair' (ie the Highways Authority had become responsible
for its maintenance by doing work on it). But no hard evidence could be
found to use in a court, so this was a dead end. In the face of the
frontagers' unwillingness to pay and the council's inability to find the
money, we let the matter drop for the time being. However, when we drew up the 'Stream and Steam' bid, I got part of the
funding to go towards getting the road surfaced. (The new tree planting in
Valley Gardens and elsewhere has also been funded from this). B&D have done
an estimate for getting it surfaced (as part of a package of work). At the
last West Craven Area Committee us 'esteeemed' councillors allocated £10,000
towards the cost of having the work done. There's still some work to be done to make sure there's enough cash for the
work, but I'm optimistic we should be able to get the work done in the next
six to nine months. I'd also like to see some gentle road humps on the existing surfaced road to
keep traffic speeds down and deter rat running - we'll have to find extra
funding for that. David Whipp ===============================
=================== www.sheldrickrose.co.ukwww.bernulf.co.ukwww.bernulfsplace.co.uk |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 16/06/2005 : 09:50
John Waite once got Esp Lane surfaced by the council on the grounds that they had done it once before. I told one of the present farmers this and he told me I was wrong. More fool him, if he looked it up he would have a case.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |