320 replies to this topic

[nabbers]

appropriatebridge, on 15 June 2010 - 09:10 PM, said:

How fascinating. I wonder if this is a pointer to more archeological investigation by removing the island to have a look at what is under there. OK I have an ulterior motive as this would help The Stones but I gather when the river bed at Gargrave was cleared, an old Roman ford was discovered. You can now see this from the road bridge by the public toilets. We know there was/is a ford at Burley but I am not aware that anyone knows exactly what form it takes. Having said that, cup and ring would probably predate any sort of ford.

To be honest, I'm pretty sure the ford is there covered by water not by the island. I'm not convinced the ford consisted of anything other than gravel on this side of the river.

This is a magical location though, too nice to be spoilt by some urban street bridge. it's early days, but the cup marked stone seems to have been on that was buried, possibly by the works connected with building the weir, stones and banks in the early 1800s. A stone axe head was found here early in the last century and my thoughts are that Leatherbank (what does that name mean?) may have been an ancient crossing point, connecting up with Rombalds way via an old route (Roman?) more or less following the Sun Lane railway crossing to Cleavdon House footpath and on to Ilkley Moor.

[appropriatebridge]

A chance to try out one of the new features of this site.

A letter appeared in yesterdays Ilkley Gazette from a Save Our Stones supporter in response to the article in the 10 June 2010 edition titled "Optimism over bid to get footbridge". Essentially, the letter picks up on the point raised by SOS and other contributors to the Forum some time ago and asks the Burley Bridge Association to confirm they now have agreement at least in principle from the landowners involved to build a bridge - otherwise how can one ever be built. The BBA have ignored this question on the Forum in the past but iy will be interesting to see how (or if) they respond to it when widely publicised in this much read local paper.

Click thumbnail below.

Attached Files

•  Letter in Ilkley Gazette 17.6.10 small.jpg   149.97K   7 downloads

[Kingfisher]

appropriatebridge, on 18 June 2010 - 07:51 PM, said:

....and asks the Burley Bridge Association to confirm they now have agreement at least in principle from the landowners involved to build a bridge - otherwise how can one ever be built.

I can assure you that, even in principle, no such permissions have ever been agreed, nor has there been any recent and concerted effort by either the BBA or the Ramblers to reach such an agreement for any bridge, any design or any location. Equally, there has been no recent approach to the landowners from any authority for any bridge proposal whether espoused by the BBA and the Ramblers or any other agency at this location.

[appropriatebridge]

Kingfisher, on 18 June 2010 - 08:28 PM, said:

I can assure you that, even in principle, no such permissions have ever been agreed, nor has there been any recent and concerted effort by either the BBA or the Ramblers to reach such an agreement for any bridge, any design or any location. Equally, there has been no recent approach to the landowners from any authority for any bridge proposal whether espoused by the BBA and the Ramblers or any other agency at this location.

Logic suggests that getting agreement at least in principle from landowners would be the first thing campaigners should do before embarking on a campaign, collecting money from the public and spending it on expensive design work. If the BBA did not then what has been the point of all the activity since 1996? Clearly no point at all.

Back to basics - Save Our Stones!

[marygill]

The BBA exist in a parallel universe where only what they desire happens.
Reality means nothing to them and they ignore letter to the press (or mine anyway) because they simply have no reasonable argument as to why we need a bridge at all.

[sutters]

Kingfisher i would like to ask you how you are so sure the landowners have not given their permission. I know they were against the bridge but they may have had a change of opinion.

[nabbers]

sutters, on 19 June 2010 - 01:16 PM, said:

Kingfisher i would like to ask you how you are so sure the landowners have not given their permission. I know they were against the bridge but they may have had a change of opinion.

This could be fun!

[Kingfisher]

nabbers, on 19 June 2010 - 05:57 PM, said:

This could be fun!

So, who is coming to the party?

Joking apart sutters, I can speak for two of the landowners and if there had been any other change of heart I would have heard.

[spyglass]

Kingfisher, on 18 June 2010 - 08:28 PM, said:

I can assure you that, even in principle, no such permissions have ever been agreed, nor has there been any recent and concerted effort by either the BBA or the Ramblers to reach such an agreement for any bridge, any design or any location. Equally, there has been no recent approach to the landowners from any authority for any bridge proposal whether espoused by the BBA and the Ramblers or any other agency at this location.

Kingfisher
You reply above suggests very little consultation by the BBA with landowners. For them to have done all the drawings on their website, raised the profile with a celeb president and had all the articles in the paper over the years without proper consultation must have really hacked off the landowners. It would have annoyed me. It is like finding an application for planning permission in your garden that you knew nothing about. If we pretended the BBA did not exist, from your intimate knowledge of the landowners are they against any bridge at all under any circumstances or might they be agreeable to some sort of bridge built in an agreed way at an agreed spot - maybe organised by someone other than the BBA!

[Kingfisher]

spyglass, on 21 June 2010 - 09:01 AM, said:

If we pretended the BBA did not exist,....

I don't think I would be troubling the landowners now with any more hare-brained schemes.

[Wharfedale]

Kingfisher, on 21 June 2010 - 12:27 PM, said:

I don't think I would be troubling the landowners now with any more hare-brained schemes.

What? Not even the use of trampolines?

[spyglass]

Kingfisher, on 21 June 2010 - 12:27 PM, said:

I don't think I would be troubling the landowners now with any more hare-brained schemes.

Doesnt quite answer my question. Is it NO to any bridge at all then? Just so everybody knows where they are.

[Wharfedale]

Any one who wants to argue against the land owner in favour of a bridge would probably need to do it on the basis of maintaining the integrity of the existing right of way and the councils duty to ensure it.

[Sebastian-Smythe]

Bridges, trampolines, whatever next?

Has no-one thought of just wading across as in days of yore?

Seriously this is going to be one of those never ending situations
which propagates more hot air than Vesuvius.

Maybe if the dam stones weren't there and the river returned to
it's near natural former self there would be no need for 'stepping'
stones or any other stones.

I fear the silly season is already upon us.

[Wharfedale]

Bridges, smidges! I want my trampoline!

[Kingfisher]

spyglass, on 21 June 2010 - 02:12 PM, said:

Doesnt quite answer my question. Is it NO to any bridge at all then? Just so everybody knows where they are.

Things are not as black and white as you presume.

If you have or know of a serious proposal that merits consideration then by all means submit it to the relevant landowners for scrutiny.

Otherwise, with every respect, take my last post as it was intended and don't encourage others to waste everybody's time with crackpot (hare-brained) ideas.

In your own words "just so everybody knows where they are".

[spyglass]

Kingfisher, on 21 June 2010 - 07:13 PM, said:

Things are not as black and white as you presume.

If you have or know of a serious proposal that merits consideration then by all means submit it to the relevant landowners for scrutiny.

Otherwise, with every respect, take my last post as it was intended and don't encourage others to waste everybody's time with crackpot (hare-brained) ideas.

In your own words "just so everybody knows where they are".

Kingfisher, I am obviously making a hash of getting my question across. I am not suggesting any alternative scheme or suggesting anyone else does. What I was trying to get to was - is it the actions of the BBA which are causing the landowners to refuse consent or is it simply that the landowners do not want any bridge at all whoever proposes it.

[Sebastian-Smythe]

spyglass, on 22 June 2010 - 09:40 AM, said:

Kingfisher, I am obviously making a hash of getting my question across. I am not suggesting any alternative scheme or suggesting anyone else does. What I was trying to get to was - is it the actions of the BBA which are causing the landowners to refuse consent or is it simply that the landowners do not want any bridge at all whoever proposes it.

Landowners apart you are forgetting another group who use that route and anybody with a bit of sense would be consulting them too. We horse riders would, if the erection ever got past hot air, be without a safe route across the river. By safe I mean one where rider and mount are on terra ferma (with a bit of aqua thrown in) instead of swaying around in mid air.

Riders have used the ford to cross at that point for centuries, yet the bobble hatted road runners seem to think it their god given right to lay down the law, to all as to what they should use to cross the river................................

[Wharfedale]

Sebastian-Smythe, on 22 June 2010 - 01:58 PM, said:

Landowners apart you are forgetting another group who use that route and anybody with a bit of sense would be consulting them too. We horse riders would, if the erection ever got past hot air, be without a safe route across the river. By safe I mean one where rider and mount are on terra ferma (with a bit of aqua thrown in) instead of swaying around in mid air.

Riders have used the ford to cross at that point for centuries, yet the bobble hatted road runners seem to think it their god given right to lay down the law, to all as to what they should use to cross the river................................

I walk down there most evening in the spring/summer/autum and many weekends in the winter and can never recall seeing a horse rider. I am not making a point; just an observation.

[nabbers]

Some sort of lamp/solar light or candle lantern has been added to the *shrine*, very attractive!