Stone me! Now they’re ripping up our heritage, say residents
Last updated 17:01, Saturday, 23 February 2008
RESIDENTS of Workington’s tree-lined Portland Square are ready to challenge plans to rip up their square’s 200-year-old cobblestones.
The residential square, described in the 1950s by Baroness Gaitskell as “a Georgian gem,” has a surface which has become a danger, according to highways authority Cumbria County Council.
It wants to remove the cobbles - originally set by Georgian craftsmen in to soft earth - and replace them with replicas because they do not meet current highway standards.
The square, the centre of a conservation area and home to Workington’s oldest hostelry, is dominated by the grade two listed Peat memorial obelisk, erected in celebration of the life of ground-breaking community physician Dr Anthony Peat on his death in 1877.
Workington MP Tony Cunningham, a resident of the Portland Square Conservation Area, said authorities would not attempt the same move in historic places like York, so they should not do it in the town.
Various options for re-laying the square have been listed by the county in a brochure. Granite setts, hard sandstone and synthetic ‘tegula’ are among the optional materials.
Some designs would keep the existing pavements and others would revert to the original square without pavements - but with drainage channels.
The county said it would “reflect on any comments made before displaying a final set of plans and drawings on the scheme at a future Neighbourhood Forum meeting in the area.”
Any scheme would be funded by the county council with additional funding from the Northwest Development Agency.
Resident Claire Harrison said: “I’ve lived here only a short time but I back the view of the civic trust that to take away the cobbles would be to destroy the unique character of the square.”
Joan McCarthy, a non-resident who was looking after son Michael’s house on the square, said: “The cobbles should stay. This is after all supposed to be a conservation area, which means that residents have to comply with all sorts of rules, rules which say only you can only fit traditional timber sash windows and can’t replace them with modern units.
“That’s fair enough, so how can the county ignore the rules and say they are going to remove the cobbles and replace them with something modern?”
Walter Rance said: “I’ve lived here for 23 years and I am concerned at what we will end up with because the brochure we received mentioned Tarmac as the normal option for a job of this kind.
“Tarmac would be totally unacceptable and how they could mention that in a conservation area is beyond me.
“I worked for Thomas Armstrong on the re-laying of a similar square at Maryport - Fleming Square - and I know the kind of problems that can occur. Some of the plans, which include seats and bollards look nice, but they are only plans.
“I would not be in favour of seats because that is going to encourage under-age drinkers to gather. I would rather they keep the kerbs and pavements. They are essential to keep water out of houses and cellars.”
Peter Chapman said: “I would benefit because I live in the privately-owned part of the square, but I am happy with the cobbles and the way they look. The answer would be to take them up and re-lay them. I am disappointed in general with the way the square is neglected. They decided to replace a street lamp 18 months ago - and they have got as far as erecting a galvanised pole, which is entirely out of keeping. We’re still waiting for the lamp.”
Tom and Wendy Scoon also live in the ‘private’ part of the square, in a house built in 1760.
“Our house, together with the Green Dragon Hotel and Curwen’s solicitors are the oldest buildings on the square,” said Tom. “I don't believe we should be talking about cobbles because they are not cobbles; they are kidney stones which have worn down over the years and which give the square its unique character.
“They are uneven in places and there have been shocking examples of reinstatement when the cobbles have been taken up by the public utilities. The stones should stay - and I am against kerbs or pavements, which we don’t have in the top part of the square.
“It would surely be just as economic to take them up and re-lay them so they are level and safe, on sand or on earth as they were originally.”
View all comments on this article
Have your say
As an Architect and Workington native, who was one of the first members of the Civic trust, I can't belive the CCC are serious.
This is Workington's Gem, one of the few remaining, a Conservation Area, and the Council must abide by the rules that apply. If the cobbles are dangerous they should be recorded, lifted and re-laid on a concrete base, as they would in York etc, as other quite rightly point out.
Posted by Peter Winthorpe on 27 March 2008 kl. 13:46