312 replies to this topic

[appropriatebridge]

To Matt
I have been pulling together a few things and as you did not attend the Parish Council Meeting on 10 December (see my post below of 12/12/09) when the SOS submission was discussed, ask if you can please give Forum members , SOS supporters and indeed the Parish Council some form of update. I realise there may still be complexities to resolve but just so we know how things are going. Specifically:

1) On 30/11/09, you reported that you had obtained the reference number for the injunction case and would be asking “them” (I assume Bradford Council Legal Services ) to obtain a copy of the injunction. Can you confirm that the request to them has been made.

2) If the request has been made, how long do they expect it to take to secure a copy.

3) On 1/12/09, you said you the relevant officers at the council were being helpful. Can you briefly outline what they are doing?

4) Also on 1/12/09, you said a survey of the current condition [of The Stones?] was to be undertaken. I am mindful of the recent rainfall and I doubt whether this has been possible but can you confirm and if it has not been done, when is it scheduled – do the Council race to The Stones immediately we have a dry spell – not sure how quick they can react - or is it all on hold until next summer?

5) You were clarifying responsibilities for maintaining The Stones. Any progress on this?

Incidentally, you also said you thought Bradford Council were responsible for maintaining the ford. This does not look as though it has had any maintenance for years. If it was properly maintained, this would help horse riders and in combination with restored Stones would give the area a great uplift.

Incidentally, my thanks to the three Save Our Stones supporters who I have since learned attended the Parish Council meeting.

[Matt]

Dear 'appropriatebridge'

My apologies were given for the parish council meeting which I was unable to attend. I'm happy to pursue this and am doing so.

I'm not going to get in to lengthy lists of questions and answers as it's not a good way of discussing matters (plus, there are many issues I am dealing with all the time and if I have to do constant staus updates on all of them I'd never get anything done ). I'm be quite happy to meet you to discuss the matter, but it is difficult as you wish to remain anonymous.

I would like to suggest a meeting for all who are interested to discuss the stepping stones, perhaps those who would be interested could let me know. I'm a little concerned that some of the discussions on this topic (and the bridge) are getting a little confrontational when they do not need to be, so I feel the best thing to do would be to meet and discuss the issues involved.

Regards,

Matt

[H2drogen]

I beleive that the landowner is responsible for maintenance of rights of way in a passable state(?) although if the council has this resp and then it should be simpler to navigate the network of committees than the legal processes to force landowners.
It would be worthwhile investigating what should be done to maintain river crossings under right of way legislation (by which I mean the ford crossing as most of the contention is that the stones are not the right of way/bridleway crossing. I will volunteer to stand up to my knees in cold water in the Summer low tide to move stuff if a plan is in place. (terms and conditions apply - small family commitments).

[appropriatebridge]

To All Save Our Stones Supporters

To begin with, I would like to wish all contributors to the Forum a Merry Christmas and especially those who have supported the Save Our Stones campaign.
The Save Our Stones submission to Burley Parish Council (which can be viewed here http://saveourstones.../latestnews.htm

The Parish Council deserve thanks for their positive attitude as do supporters who have made this possible. Let us hope for a successful outcome. In the meantime, all additional support to the SOS website is welcome.

To Matt Palmer – in response to your post of 16 December

I am sorry you seem to have taken offence at my request for an update. I do not expect the issue to be resolved quickly and all I was hoping for was a brief progress report for supporters. My questions were simply suggestions of the areas which could have been included.

Since this issue started in mid August, about the only feedback you have provided is that you have identified some officials to speak to (one of which I supplied), that you are satisfied with the co-operation you are receiving and that you have identified the reference number of the injunction. This is not much feedback after 4 months and your comments really amount to "don't bother me, I'm dealing with it". Contrast with the response from the Parish Council who have identified some specific actions they intend to take.

I do appreciate there are many other and maybe more important issues you are trying to deal with at the same time and I also appreciate that the closer we get to the General Election you will have to give increasing time to you campaign to become MP for Bradford South. It is common sense that you have to give priority to your ambition and the resulting benefit for your family.

As regards my anonymity, as the internationally renowned artist Banksy has shown, anonymity does not detract from the value of art (ignoring any “eye of the beholder” arguments!). Similarly, anonymity does not detract from reasoned argument. If it does, then virtually all the postings on this Forum are worthless.

There is no sinister purpose in concealing my identity, simply a preference and a desire that people support the campaign on its own merits not because I might persuade them to support me as an individual (or the converse!) I hope I have demonstrated some integrity by reasoned arguments, reinforcing them with related facts and respecting the confidences of various individuals.

I am dare say a meeting where supporters could voice questions/concerns could be useful but all action now needs tying up with the Parish Council and the outcome of their enquiries.

[Matt]

appropriatebridge said:

I am sorry you seem to have taken offence at my request for an update.

I haven't. I'm just spending far more time responding to people on this than I am dealing with the issue, which makes things much more complicated and time consuming. As I have offered previously, I would be happy to meet you to discuss - the forum allows for anonymity but it does not help sometimes.

I can't post everything in intricate detail at every point. I deal with many queries on many issues every week and if I wrote updates on them all would get nothing done. Suffice to say the PC will now be making some enquiries I have already made and some others I had avoiding making at this stage. No doubt that will save me making some of these enquiries in due course, and I'm happy for my colleagues on the PC to be involved. However, sometimes the best thing to do is to let people do their jobs - even councillors!

Of course I completely dispute your suggestion that I would put personal interest first at any time, which is quite an unnecessary comment.

However, as you did ask for an update - I am awaiting a copy of the full file on this which will be placed on the forum when received. Other queries are with legal services. They have a lot to do and I don't expect answers overnight. Other queries are with the rights of way team. They have to look in to things I have asked before getting back to me. A week does not go past without correspondence on the matter!

Regards,

Matt

[Matt]

by the way, you can now post maps on the forum. Just find the map in googlemaps and clikc 'link' to get the link. Click the 'gmap' button above the post text box and paste the link between the tags, to get:

[appropriatebridge]

admin said:

Of course I completely dispute your suggestion that I would put personal interest first at any time, which is quite an unnecessary comment.

Regards,

Matt

Unreserved apologies for any offence caused.

[nabbers]

.

[appropriatebridge]

To Matt

I was studying the satellite photo you posted on 19 December. It looks obvious from this that as I alluded to in the submission to the Parish Council, the "island" immediately downstream of The Stones must reduce the ability of the water to escape. From on site inspection, it does appear to have been reduced recently but if cleared away entirely, it must help matters. Another thing, the island also narrows the channel for the water. This will have the effect of speeding up and increasing the pressure of the flow which must in turn increase erosion of the northern bank. None of this is relevant to the current state of proceedings but is perhaps something to bear in mind when we get to the works themselves.

Have a good Christmas break.

To Nabbers

nabbers said:

Well I have to hand it to SOS! The man in the mask has kicked ass on this project and appears to be getting results, well done!

P.S. doing this anonymously shows that that sos is doing this for the right reasons, not for self publicity, career reasons or the hope of an MBE!

I am not sure I can live up to the macho image of an ass kicker but thanks anyway. I was amused by the epithet "man in the mask" however and was prompted to create the avatar.

[Matt]

Information from BMDC

File name Description
1968 Hearing 16 page Inspectors report of the Hearing into objections to the inclusion of a number of paths on the Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way. The path which crosses the Stepping Stones is referred to as path 39(part) and the discussion of this path starts on page 6.
1997 Survey Survey report into visual inspection of the relevant section of Ilkley path 39 carried out as part of the Council’s full network survey prior to producing the Milestones report
Original Survey 1951 The survey form submitted to West Riding County Council by Ilkley Urban District Council in 1951 as part of the survey to produce the first Definitive Map of public rights of way under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949
SS1 Copy of file copy of correspondence from Chief Engineer, West Yorkshire County Council to the Director of Administration, summarising history of the stones, 6th July 1978
SS2 Letter from Chief Engineer to Planning Officer 10 March 1978 concerning history of the Burley crossing
SS2A Letter from Chief Engineer to executive Director Traffic and Transportation WYMCC January 1978 describing maintenance work carried out on the stones
SS3 7 July 1977 letter from Chief Engineer WYCC to Yorkshire Water requesting consent to work on the stones.
SS4 24 June 1977 letter from Chief Engineer to Messrs JH Milner and Sons describing proposals for work on the stones
SS5 14 June 1977 letter from Chief Engineer to Messrs JH Milner and Sons describing inspection and condition of the stones
SS6 31 December 1976 letter from Chief Engineer to Messrs JH Milner and Sons referring to meeting and proposals for work on the stones
SS7 15 October 1975 letter from JH Milner objecting to proposed work on the stones
SS8 28 April 1975 letter from JH Milner objecting to proposed work on the stones

[Matt]

rest of the files... please download one at a time and save on your PC for viewing to avoid excessive load on the server - thanks

[nabbers]

.

[Wharfedale]

In ss8 (BTW, brilliant post Matt, very interesting!) it is said that the anglers use the goit as a fish farm. Clearly this was some time ago, but does anyone know if that’s still the case? I ask because that would be a problem for the proposed hydro-electric project.

[nabbers]

.

[Sebastian-Smythe]

Reading those pdfs I. like nabbers, feel the need for qualification as to when certain members of the community began calling those stones - stepping stones - when clearly they are not.

[appropriatebridge]

Sebastian-Smythe said:

Reading those pdfs I. like nabbers, feel the need for qualification as to when certain members of the community began calling those stones - stepping stones - when clearly they are not.

Hi SS.

Welcome

Wherever possible, in my SOS writings, I have tried to refer to "The Stones" rather than "stepping stones" in recognition of the fact that they were originally installed to control the water flow. However, whatever title we give them does not matter for the fact is they became used as stepping stones by the public and thus the route across them became a public right of way. This is confirmed by one of the documents provided by Matt - 1968 Enquiry - Inspector’s Conclusions Section 105 (2).

Please don't run (or swim!) away with this red herring.

Matt

Thanks for providing these papers. I think I may have found a crucial bit in them which will help the case for restoration of The Stones and will publish my more detailed observations shortly. I asssume there is still the injunction to come - you said a while ago that you had the reference number. Is there likely to be anything else?

[appropriatebridge]

Below is the text of an email sent to the Burley Parish Council giving observations on the documents from the Bradford MDC archives and published here by Matt on 1 January 2010.

The email reads:

To Burley Parish Council

Councillor Palmer has now obtained a number of documents relating to the history of maintenance of The Stones. It is assumed members of the Parish Council will have been given access to them but they can be downloaded from the Burley Forum. They have also been downloaded to the Save Our Stones website and listed by title in chronological order for ease of reference. Access via “Latest News”.

One issue which keeps being raised by contributors to the Burley Forum and was also attempted by the solicitors J.H. Milner & Son in their representations on behalf of their client [presumably Leeds Angling Association] who was trying to stop any work in the 1970s, is that “The Stones” are not and never were intended as stepping stones. The simple fact is whatever name they are given is irrelevant. They were used as a means of crossing the river with sufficient regularity and over a sufficiently long period for them to acquire Right Of Way status by reason of habitual use. Their ROW status is confirmed absolutely by perhaps the most crucial part of the 1968 Enquiry - Inspector’s Conclusions at Section 105 (2). It confirms the route over The Stones is a public route. They are also recorded on the Definitive Footpath Map as a public footpath. This matter does not need further discussion.

In his letter dated 27 May 1977 (re-dated to 14 June 1977) in his letter to J.H Milner and Son, the Chief Engineer says that The Stones were to be bedded on the slab, rather than made part of it, so that in the event that they were struck by large floating objects, The Stones would be dislodged, avoiding any shock being transferred to the sill. Restoration of The Stones in a similar manner therefore cannot pose any risk to the sill, the stilling pool or the weir.

Save Our Stones has contended throughout that Bradford Council has a duty to maintain the Right Of Way across the river. I do not think this has ever been disputed but in any case, the Chief Engineer confirms this absolutely in his letter to J.H. Milner and Son dated 24 June 1977, where he says “the Council has a duty to maintain the public right of way which was gained over the stepping stones”.

Now I come to what I regard as probably the most useful of the documents in relation to getting The Stones restored.

In his letter of 6 July 1978 from the Chief Engineer to R.G. Brook at West Yorkshire CC, he sets out relevant history.

It states in the eighth paragraph that “…. there are 2 or 3 existing stones towards the northern side which are slightly lower than the remaining stones, and, therefore, are under water before the remaining stones are submerged”.

If you look at the photograph of The Stones on the SOS website (the portrait orientation) which was taken in September 2009 after a very long dry spell, (you may need to zoom in), it is obvious that The Stones nearest the northern bank are now higher than the 6 or 7 submerged in the centre. If this number of stones in the centre are now submerged before those towards the northern bank, logically, these must have either sunk or been eroded. These 6 or 7 cannot be the same 2 or 3 referred to by the Chief Engineer as they are in the centre and could hardly be classed as “towards the northern side”.

We have no way of knowing what the original level of all The Stones was when they were installed. This is confirmed by the Chief Engineer’s letter to A.E. Naylor dated 31 January 1978. However Save Our Stones believes there is clear evidence that the condition of The Stones has worsened and that there is a clear need and duty for Bradford Council to restore them to their former levels which at the very least has to be the same as the stones close to the northern bank . This would constitute maintenance, not improvement.

The Chief Engineer is right to conclude the heights should not be raised by levels which might encourage crossing when the river is in a dangerous state but the degree of elevation to bring them back to at least the level of The Stones at the northern bank would be nowhere near this.

We should also not be distracted by the fact that someone was drowned crossing The Stones in the 1960s, when they must have taken an unreasonable risk. Obviously if stones are submerged, one should not cross. In fact, the Council would be substantially reducing risk if they maintained all The Stones to the same level as if any were submerged, they all would be, thus discouraging the foolhardy from starting to cross in the first place. There will always be a temptation to complete the crossing if one gets towards the middle and finds only 6 or 7 submerged."

[Sebastian-Smythe]

Reading the last paragraph of the previous post, I am left wondering if the Parish fully understand the reason for said stones to be there in the first. Nature has a wonderful way of making fools of those who mess with things they don't understand. Also how many really do want things changed.

[Matt]

appropriatebridge said:

Thanks for providing these papers. I think I may have found a crucial bit in them which will help the case for restoration of The Stones and will publish my more detailed observations shortly. I asssume there is still the injunction to come - you said a while ago that you had the reference number. Is there likely to be anything else?

Yes, you're right. This information was collated by the Rights of Way team. I'm now awaiting information from Legal Services who are a bit snowed under at the moment

Matt

[nabbers]

.