312 replies to this topic

[weirdmusic]

I've just signed up to the campaign http://saveourstones.webs.com/

I agree that the bridge is never likely to get built. Perhaps the people involved in the bridge project have lost sight of the reasons why they need one. Its primarily a river crossing for walkers. A cynic might suggest that the only reason that they want a bridge is that they don't like getting their feet wet.

The stones are already there, but they need restoration. I'd be interested to know what is required to restore them i.e. what works need to be carried out to bring them back up to a standard that is safe for all walkers? Has anyone actually costed out the work needed? What equipment would be required?

A good many years ago I got involved in the very early stages of a canal restoration project - we set about restoring a lock to fully working order. We started with just volunteer labour - a few picks, shovels & wheelbarrows. The powers that be, weren't interested & they certainly weren't going to pay for it!

But our mere presence, nearly every weekend, over the course of 18 months garnered widespread support - offers of equipment, the use of a JCB + driver, builders & stone masons offered their services for free. We restored one lock and moved onto the next. The completed restoration of the locks created the impetus politically & socially to get on with the restoration of the entire canal. That canal is now fully functioning, its called the Huddersfield Narrow Canal. http://www.huddersfi...h.htm#uppermill

Can something similar be done to restore the stones? When we were restoring the locks - people from all across the country came to help us - some were just individuals, others were more organised & brought their own equipment. Can we not tap into that network - i.e. conservation volunteers & their ilk?

[nabbers]

.

[weirdmusic]

OK - So how much stone, how many steel pegs, how much cement, how many sand bags? I can find out the Environment Agency contact, who owns the land - anybody have contact details? And whilst we're at it why don't we restore the ford as well. That way the horses won't need a bridge.

[nabbers]

.

[weirdmusic]

OK nabbers - so its not that difficult. I was expecting you to say it couldn't be done.

[appropriatebridge]

Thanks Weirdmusic for registering with http://saveourstones.webs.com/ and welcome to the Forum. Thanks also for your suggestions for improving the SOS website wording - now implemented.

I think we can very safely write off any bridge hopes for all the reasons well aired and concentrate on The Stones. I think you were right to set up a separate thread to that end. I expect you have looked through the bridge thread where there was lots of discussion.

At this stage, we do not know what exactly is needed to restore The Stones. No work has been done to my knowledge but I suspect Nabbers has basically got it right. Probably need a few sandbags and pump as well to create cassions.

As far as volunteer labour is concerned, I think that would be relatively easily secured. Apart from anyone else, there is also the Burley-in-Wharfedale Community Trust which does various good things about the village. They might be willing to contribute funds as well as helpers - I haven't asked them yet but they are aware of this campaign.

However, in my view, our first port of call should be Bradford Council who are responsible for maintaining the Stones and Right of Way. We pay handsome amounts of Council Tax after all! Additionally, there is an unanswered question about the existence of an injunction preventing work on The Stones. Bradford Council should have the information about this as well as the resources to check its validity or challenge it if necessary. They will also know who the landowners are and what approvals are required if any. They may not need any approvals for "maintenance". Councillor Matt Palmer has been chasing this since mid August but is getting nowhere and has himself described progress as "frustratingly slow". To try to advance things, the issue is to be escalated in the next day or two and all supporters will be advised and asked for emails of support.

[blunt pencil]

Would it be worth producing a draft letter that people can download and put their name to.

I tried a letter to the council once over something. I asked them to declare the information relating to the issue under Freedom Of Information act (FOI). They have a legal duty to respond to it within 21 days. Failure to do so means they are in breach of the Government charter and can b e prosecuted.

Perhaps if the council received numerous requests for the information, they would realise its worth the response.

[Matt]

Hi all,

I would appreciate it if no action was taken right now, as it would not be helpful at this point.

I have held a meeting with the relevant officers this morning and am making some further enquiries, as are officers who will survey the stones when the water levels are lower - I don't have time to post in full between meetings today but will update you all as soon as I can.

I'm sure there will be a time for further community action but now is not it, so I'd ask you to hold off until I can fill you in on the result of my efforts.

I would also like to know whether there would be interest in a public meeting to discuss the stones once we know where we stand?

Regards,

Matt

[Matt]

btw the council does not have a copy of an injuction. I now have the reference number for the case and will be asking them to obtain one

Matt

[Matt]

weirdmusic said:

who owns the land - anybody have contact details? .

West Riding Anglers, who are responsble for the stones themselves. BMDC are responsible for the right of way.

[Matt]

blunt pencil said:

I tried a letter to the council once over something. I asked them to declare the information relating to the issue under Freedom Of Information act (FOI). They have a legal duty to respond to it within 21 days.

I have already made this request this morning for a copy of all information held. I will post attachments on the forum as received!

Regards,

Matt

[Matt]

Hi all,

One of the 'questions' at the moment, as I try to uncover the exact text of the injuction, is what would constitute 'maintenance' and what would constitute 'improvement', the point being that maintenance may be easier to do than improvement, and if the stones have historically been much better than they are now, what seems like an improvement may actually only be necessary maintenance... and therefore easier to do.

If anyone had any old photographs of the stones showing them undamaged and in consistently good condition, could you please let me have a copy (not the original) either by email or by dropping a copy through the door?

Thanks

Matt

[appropriatebridge]

Matt

I have already posed this question on the Forum and on the SOS website but so far, the only photo I have been sent was (I am told) developed in 1999. The Stones do look slightly more even than they do now but it is difficult to be sure. They are also clearly being used by someone as stepping stones. This can be accessed at http://saveourstones...ones%201999.jpg

I have uncovered some information about The Stones which might be worth checking out with Bradford.

I understand originally, Greenholmes Mills provided the stones as cutwaters and therefore owned the stones. However, they failed to maintain them so, by the 1970's only about 10% of the original stones remained. Bradford Council made good the deficit with old stone kerbs in their ownership. If this is so (and presumably can be checked in their records) then they must physically own 90% of The Stones and therefore have liability to maintain them from both a physical and a Right of Way perspective.

[Matt]

appropriatebridge said:

I understand originally, Greenholmes Mills provided the stones as cutwaters and therefore owned the stones. However, they failed to maintain them so, by the 1970's only about 10% of the original stones remained. Bradford Council made good the deficit with old stone kerbs in their ownership. If this is so (and presumably can be checked in their records) then they must physically own 90% of The Stones and therefore have liability to maintain them from both a physical and a Right of Way perspective.

That's useful to know. At present, it appears that responsbility is two-fold - the anglers being responsible for the maintenance of the stones as a 'cutwater' i.e. to meet their original purspose, and Bradford being responsble for the right of way over them (and the seperate right of way over the ford). This creates some complexity and I am currrently clarifying these issues with the Council's Legal Services unit.

Whilst it has take a little while to idenitfy all those involved in this etc, officers are being very helpful. As I mentioned, action is already being take re. a survey of the current condition. I have noted your request for a Parish Council discussion - I would say that I am happy with the response from council officers so far; further requests of pressure at this time would not be helpful, and may even detract from current actions - there is nothing to be done that is not already being done - at the moment!

Matt

[appropriatebridge]

Of course, it could be that regardless of who owns what, a simple discussion between the appropriate bit of Bradford Council and the landowner(s) could elicit a positive response enabling Bradford to "maintain" The Stones.

Regarding Matt's comment about a request for a Parish Council discussion, this referrs to a submission I have sent to them today and copied to all registered SOS supporters seeking their backing.

In essence, I seek to reinforce Matt's discussions by getting the Parish Council to support the cause and "own" the issue on behalf of Burley. If anyone else would like a copy of the submission and to add their support, please email saveourstones@hotmail.co.uk

[Matt]

Hello,

I would appreciate it if the saveourstones campaign would halt the email writing etc., as whilst intended no doubt to be helpful, it is not helpful at this time for the reasons previously outlined. The number of emails received has no impact on what action is taken, as the appropriate action is already being taken, but is does force me to spend my time managing correspondence rather than dealing with this and other matters.

It would also be helpful if those emailing me would identify themselves as it is when they do not tell me who they are - I can reply to forum posts on that basis but I really can't deal with casework in that way!

You have asked me to look into this - please let me do so.

Regards,

Matt

[Wharfedale]

why do we have two threads about the same thing?

[Wharfedale]

... Make that three

[appropriatebridge]

Matt said:

Hello,

I would appreciate it if the saveourstones campaign would halt the email writing etc., as whilst intended no doubt to be helpful, it is not helpful at this time for the reasons previously outlined. The number of emails received has no impact on what action is taken, as the appropriate action is already being taken, but is does force me to spend my time managing correspondence rather than dealing with this and other matters.

It would also be helpful if those emailing me would identify themselves as it is when they do not tell me who they are - I can reply to forum posts on that basis but I really can't deal with casework in that way!

You have asked me to look into this - please let me do so.

Regards,

Matt

I am afraid all the emails to supporters were sent out at the same time plus one to a new registrant. All supporters have been emailed so I have no cause to send out any more. You sent me an email on 2 December 2009 which is obviously a "standard" email you are sending to anyone who expresses support as I have received it several times as a copy. I was going to reply via email but in view of the above, I will reply here.

Your "standard" email reads:
"Thank you for your email. I have received a number of similar emails on this subject, and whilst I appreciate the genuine sentiment behind this, it does create a significant administrative burden that can detract from resolving the matter. I am therefore sending this response to all emails received.

I am at present in discussions with the relevant departments in the council with regard to the ongoing maintenance of the stones and it would not be helpful at this time for the parish council or others to place further pressure on council officers, who are assisting me fully in this matter.

The issue is also a matter of ongoing discussion at wharfedaleforums.com, and I will continue to post progress on the matter as it happens on that forum."

My reply is:

My itention in sending out the emails was to give supporters an opportunity to give tangible support to the submission to the Parish Council and to ensure the Parish Council were aware of that support. My reason for referring the issue to them in the first place was that it seemed reasonable to assume that in your dealings with Bradford Council, you would have greater authority if you had the backing of the Parish Council rather than a miscellaneous group of individuals. Furthermore, as I said in the submission to the PC, The Stones are an asset of industrial-archaeological and Right Of Way value of which Burley should be proud and should respect. As such, they should already have been on the Parish Council radar as representing the interests of Burley residents as a whole but I suppose these things have to start somewhere.

If the Parish Council as a whole agree that this is an inopportune time to put pressure on Bradford Council, then fair enough. They will have a much better understanding of the machinery of local government than I. However, unless they consider the issue to be of too trivial an interest to them, I would like to think they will maintain a watching brief over your progress so that they can add whatever weight as/when/if they feel it is necessary. I am more than happy to be guided by the Parish Council.

It is certainly not my intention to make life difficult for anyone and if it helps, for the time being, I will be silent and I will make no more posts or reply/send emails/PMs other than to welcome any new supporters.

What does anyone else think?

[appropriatebridge]

It is noted that the Save Our Stones submission to Burley Parish Council was tabled for discussion at the full PC meeting on 10 December 2009 at item 23 of the agenda which can be seen here http://www.burley-in...dabpc091210.pdf.

SOS look forward to the response from the PC.

A copy of the submission itself can be seen via the "Latest News" page of the SOS website here http://www.saveourst.../latestnews.htm

On a totally unconnected subject, I suspect villagers may well be interested in item 15 of the agenda!