Work starts on bridge over Watford pond

Work starts on bridge over Watford pond

Work starts on bridge over Watford pond

First published in News Watford Observer: Photograph of the Author by , Chief Reporter

Construction has started on a new bridge over the Watford pond as part of town centre’s £4.3 million make-over.

The metal frame of the walkway has been laid over the empty water feature and when complete it will have a wooden decked surface with illuminated hand rails.

Work is also now due to begin on fitting it with a new water filtration system.

Watford Observer:

How the new pond will look

The new system will have UV filters to remedy the pond’s previous algae problem, which gave its water an unpleasant murky green hue.

Three new fountains will also be put in to the new pond to help aerate the water and make it a better environment for the fish.

Other features of new pond will include a new canvas and mud lining and the northern end will have a stepped seating area leading to the water’s edge.

During the construction the pond’s fish have been housed in aquariums while they await the completion of their new home.

The council said it also hopes that the town’s heron will return to the pond once the water is back.

Laura Ormerod, of the Landscaped Architects BDP says: "The scheme will create an elegant, more accessible and comfortable environment for both pedestrians and cyclists. It will also retain and enhance the setting of the pond which has been there for over 100 years."

Alan Gough, Head of Community and Customer Service at Watford Borough Council added:
"The pond and the new events space will be much more accessible, providing a cleaner environment and a brilliant place to watch outdoor art."

The revamp of the pond comes as the council nears the completion of its scheme to regenerate The Parade. New paving has been laid and street lighting installed from Rickmansworth Road to the junction with Clarendon Road.

As part of the scheme the area at the northern end of The Parade is being decluttered and will be used for a programme of public events planned to start later this year.

Among the events confirmed are an ice skating rink and big movie screen for showings of classic movies.

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:53am Tue 18 Mar 14

chris6955 says...

What a waste of bloody money The Pond needed a clean and 7 Million pound could have been spent at Watford General or Housing in Watford Grrrrrr
What a waste of bloody money The Pond needed a clean and 7 Million pound could have been spent at Watford General or Housing in Watford Grrrrrr chris6955
  • Score: 18

12:03pm Tue 18 Mar 14

garston tony says...

The council cant spend the money on the areas you mentioned, the money can only be spent on things like this.

Dont like it lobby your MP to have the law changed (and before anyone starts its a law that existed in Labours time too)
The council cant spend the money on the areas you mentioned, the money can only be spent on things like this. Dont like it lobby your MP to have the law changed (and before anyone starts its a law that existed in Labours time too) garston tony
  • Score: 8

12:11pm Tue 18 Mar 14

The Rover says...

garston tony wrote:
The council cant spend the money on the areas you mentioned, the money can only be spent on things like this.

Dont like it lobby your MP to have the law changed (and before anyone starts its a law that existed in Labours time too)
A better way to have spent regeneration money would have been to give new businesses a grace period without rent and rates to help establish their business, get all the empty retail units populated and provide local jobs. That would have made the High Street look far more attractive than some paving slabs and a bridge. Some funding could have also been provided to assist with refurbishing the old Artichoke pub which has been empty for years. I understand that the building is so derelict that any potential tenants are put off by the cost.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: The council cant spend the money on the areas you mentioned, the money can only be spent on things like this. Dont like it lobby your MP to have the law changed (and before anyone starts its a law that existed in Labours time too)[/p][/quote]A better way to have spent regeneration money would have been to give new businesses a grace period without rent and rates to help establish their business, get all the empty retail units populated and provide local jobs. That would have made the High Street look far more attractive than some paving slabs and a bridge. Some funding could have also been provided to assist with refurbishing the old Artichoke pub which has been empty for years. I understand that the building is so derelict that any potential tenants are put off by the cost. The Rover
  • Score: 9

12:15pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Harry Caine says...

All this and the £millions spent on 4 parks as announced on 3 Counties radio this morning
There isn't an election coming up by any chance is there?
All this and the £millions spent on 4 parks as announced on 3 Counties radio this morning There isn't an election coming up by any chance is there? Harry Caine
  • Score: 8

12:53pm Tue 18 Mar 14

TRT says...

£4.3m would have paid for the renovation of Frogmore House, decontamination of the old gas-o-meter site and a continuation of the Colne-side walk and cycle way through green and pleasant riverside gardens - not that the concrete culverted Colne is particularly attractive at that point in its meanderings. Frogmore House could have been used for low cost office rental space for start-up and new enterprise businesses, or an indoor market in the style of Affleck's Palace - a draw for younger people travelling from London would be the lower cost in-TfL-zone fares available to Bushey.
As it is, the Waitrose deal appears to have fallen flat due to the poor transport infrastructure at that point, due to be made even worse if they create a back-road to the hospital near there - they need a second bridge over the Colne at Lower High Street for Northbound traffic, lessening the bend onto Dalton Way for the bus service, and freeing up a second lane on approach to the arches. Utilising the Mercedes Benz overflow showroom... sorry... the green verges there, to set back the bus stop and allow traffic past so it lessens the gridlock around the arches, and tidying up the concrete and tarmac, broken glass and metal barrier maze wasteland at the High St/ Waterfields junction to form an attractive gateway would help a lot.
So much that money could have achieved rather than be spent overhauling something that should have had a 30 year life span but barely made it past 10 years, which was when the last high street makeover was done.
£4.3m would have paid for the renovation of Frogmore House, decontamination of the old gas-o-meter site and a continuation of the Colne-side walk and cycle way through green and pleasant riverside gardens - not that the concrete culverted Colne is particularly attractive at that point in its meanderings. Frogmore House could have been used for low cost office rental space for start-up and new enterprise businesses, or an indoor market in the style of Affleck's Palace - a draw for younger people travelling from London would be the lower cost in-TfL-zone fares available to Bushey. As it is, the Waitrose deal appears to have fallen flat due to the poor transport infrastructure at that point, due to be made even worse if they create a back-road to the hospital near there - they need a second bridge over the Colne at Lower High Street for Northbound traffic, lessening the bend onto Dalton Way for the bus service, and freeing up a second lane on approach to the arches. Utilising the Mercedes Benz overflow showroom... sorry... the green verges there, to set back the bus stop and allow traffic past so it lessens the gridlock around the arches, and tidying up the concrete and tarmac, broken glass and metal barrier maze wasteland at the High St/ Waterfields junction to form an attractive gateway would help a lot. So much that money could have achieved rather than be spent overhauling something that should have had a 30 year life span but barely made it past 10 years, which was when the last high street makeover was done. TRT
  • Score: 8

1:20pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

The town centre is important but has an an opportunity been missed with a rather extravagant bridge for poo sticks.

Surely priortising some money to St Albans Rd would have been greatly appreciated or is it always politics as to who gets the gravy ?

I suppose in a few years time there will be another town centre spruce up and St Albans Rd will be much the worse for wear.
The town centre is important but has an an opportunity been missed with a rather extravagant bridge for poo sticks. Surely priortising some money to St Albans Rd would have been greatly appreciated or is it always politics as to who gets the gravy ? I suppose in a few years time there will be another town centre spruce up and St Albans Rd will be much the worse for wear. Cuetip
  • Score: 13

1:41pm Tue 18 Mar 14

garston tony says...

The Rover wrote:
garston tony wrote: The council cant spend the money on the areas you mentioned, the money can only be spent on things like this. Dont like it lobby your MP to have the law changed (and before anyone starts its a law that existed in Labours time too)
A better way to have spent regeneration money would have been to give new businesses a grace period without rent and rates to help establish their business, get all the empty retail units populated and provide local jobs. That would have made the High Street look far more attractive than some paving slabs and a bridge. Some funding could have also been provided to assist with refurbishing the old Artichoke pub which has been empty for years. I understand that the building is so derelict that any potential tenants are put off by the cost.
I wasnt saying that this bridge is a good way to spend money but I understand that the money to build it comes from money that developers give to the council as part of agreements to get planning permission for what they want to do.

That money has to be spent on so called capital projects like this and cant be spent giving businesses rent/rate free periods or on social housing or at Watford General as much as that might be a more immediately beneficial way to spend it.

Hence why i said dont like it campaign to have the government change the rules as they are the ones that set them not WBC.

As to the parks isnt that lottery money which the council applied for an age ago? Hardly the councils timing if the decision was announced recently to award them money so that the parks can be improved.

There have been studies that indicate spending money on the environment that we all live and work and socialise in can have the effect of boosting morale and mental well being which would have a positive knock on effect on consumer spending and health so some might argue that this bridge and the works on the park could help business and the hospital too. Just a thought (and no I dont think this bridge is necessary)
[quote][p][bold]The Rover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: The council cant spend the money on the areas you mentioned, the money can only be spent on things like this. Dont like it lobby your MP to have the law changed (and before anyone starts its a law that existed in Labours time too)[/p][/quote]A better way to have spent regeneration money would have been to give new businesses a grace period without rent and rates to help establish their business, get all the empty retail units populated and provide local jobs. That would have made the High Street look far more attractive than some paving slabs and a bridge. Some funding could have also been provided to assist with refurbishing the old Artichoke pub which has been empty for years. I understand that the building is so derelict that any potential tenants are put off by the cost.[/p][/quote]I wasnt saying that this bridge is a good way to spend money but I understand that the money to build it comes from money that developers give to the council as part of agreements to get planning permission for what they want to do. That money has to be spent on so called capital projects like this and cant be spent giving businesses rent/rate free periods or on social housing or at Watford General as much as that might be a more immediately beneficial way to spend it. Hence why i said dont like it campaign to have the government change the rules as they are the ones that set them not WBC. As to the parks isnt that lottery money which the council applied for an age ago? Hardly the councils timing if the decision was announced recently to award them money so that the parks can be improved. There have been studies that indicate spending money on the environment that we all live and work and socialise in can have the effect of boosting morale and mental well being which would have a positive knock on effect on consumer spending and health so some might argue that this bridge and the works on the park could help business and the hospital too. Just a thought (and no I dont think this bridge is necessary) garston tony
  • Score: 11

2:43pm Tue 18 Mar 14

watfoid says...

Looks like a perfect vantage point to drop beer cans and chip wrappers in!

The pond has always been quite a pleasant feature of the High St and didn't need much renovation apart from the algae treatment mentioned. The things that bring the High Street down are the endless bars and clubs which attract hordes of lumbering drunken thugs and screeching beer-swlling laddettes. It turns a once-pleasant shopping street into a tacky Ibiza party strip. Sticking a bridge over the pond is just a bit of expensive window-dressing - it won't solve Watford's problems.
Looks like a perfect vantage point to drop beer cans and chip wrappers in! The pond has always been quite a pleasant feature of the High St and didn't need much renovation apart from the algae treatment mentioned. The things that bring the High Street down are the endless bars and clubs which attract hordes of lumbering drunken thugs and screeching beer-swlling laddettes. It turns a once-pleasant shopping street into a tacky Ibiza party strip. Sticking a bridge over the pond is just a bit of expensive window-dressing - it won't solve Watford's problems. watfoid
  • Score: 12

3:30pm Tue 18 Mar 14

angryangryangry says...

Looks like a wonderful place to spew your guts up into the pond rather than on your shoes and the pavement - no splashback onto your trousers too!

Really the amount of money spent on this could have been put to better use. Surely in times such that we are in, the money should be put towards feeding the third world, giving a raise in benefits to those that do not work, perhaps pay for the air fares of those wishing to come here to use our NHS. Even to build some more houses too for them to live in. (Being very sarcastic by the way, before anyone starts!)
Looks like a wonderful place to spew your guts up into the pond rather than on your shoes and the pavement - no splashback onto your trousers too! Really the amount of money spent on this could have been put to better use. Surely in times such that we are in, the money should be put towards feeding the third world, giving a raise in benefits to those that do not work, perhaps pay for the air fares of those wishing to come here to use our NHS. Even to build some more houses too for them to live in. (Being very sarcastic by the way, before anyone starts!) angryangryangry
  • Score: -1

4:03pm Tue 18 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

Glad to see new filters going in, not impressed about the bridge , like the new paving but think the loss of a differentiated bike route is a mistake. Come on lets get meaningful consultation where other views are taken on board and acted on please!!!
Glad to see new filters going in, not impressed about the bridge , like the new paving but think the loss of a differentiated bike route is a mistake. Come on lets get meaningful consultation where other views are taken on board and acted on please!!! dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

4:07pm Tue 18 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

garston tony wrote:
The Rover wrote:
garston tony wrote: The council cant spend the money on the areas you mentioned, the money can only be spent on things like this. Dont like it lobby your MP to have the law changed (and before anyone starts its a law that existed in Labours time too)
A better way to have spent regeneration money would have been to give new businesses a grace period without rent and rates to help establish their business, get all the empty retail units populated and provide local jobs. That would have made the High Street look far more attractive than some paving slabs and a bridge. Some funding could have also been provided to assist with refurbishing the old Artichoke pub which has been empty for years. I understand that the building is so derelict that any potential tenants are put off by the cost.
I wasnt saying that this bridge is a good way to spend money but I understand that the money to build it comes from money that developers give to the council as part of agreements to get planning permission for what they want to do.

That money has to be spent on so called capital projects like this and cant be spent giving businesses rent/rate free periods or on social housing or at Watford General as much as that might be a more immediately beneficial way to spend it.

Hence why i said dont like it campaign to have the government change the rules as they are the ones that set them not WBC.

As to the parks isnt that lottery money which the council applied for an age ago? Hardly the councils timing if the decision was announced recently to award them money so that the parks can be improved.

There have been studies that indicate spending money on the environment that we all live and work and socialise in can have the effect of boosting morale and mental well being which would have a positive knock on effect on consumer spending and health so some might argue that this bridge and the works on the park could help business and the hospital too. Just a thought (and no I dont think this bridge is necessary)
Yet when labour suggested spending money on St Albans road, Libdem said it was 20% of council tax so can see why people get confused.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Rover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: The council cant spend the money on the areas you mentioned, the money can only be spent on things like this. Dont like it lobby your MP to have the law changed (and before anyone starts its a law that existed in Labours time too)[/p][/quote]A better way to have spent regeneration money would have been to give new businesses a grace period without rent and rates to help establish their business, get all the empty retail units populated and provide local jobs. That would have made the High Street look far more attractive than some paving slabs and a bridge. Some funding could have also been provided to assist with refurbishing the old Artichoke pub which has been empty for years. I understand that the building is so derelict that any potential tenants are put off by the cost.[/p][/quote]I wasnt saying that this bridge is a good way to spend money but I understand that the money to build it comes from money that developers give to the council as part of agreements to get planning permission for what they want to do. That money has to be spent on so called capital projects like this and cant be spent giving businesses rent/rate free periods or on social housing or at Watford General as much as that might be a more immediately beneficial way to spend it. Hence why i said dont like it campaign to have the government change the rules as they are the ones that set them not WBC. As to the parks isnt that lottery money which the council applied for an age ago? Hardly the councils timing if the decision was announced recently to award them money so that the parks can be improved. There have been studies that indicate spending money on the environment that we all live and work and socialise in can have the effect of boosting morale and mental well being which would have a positive knock on effect on consumer spending and health so some might argue that this bridge and the works on the park could help business and the hospital too. Just a thought (and no I dont think this bridge is necessary)[/p][/quote]Yet when labour suggested spending money on St Albans road, Libdem said it was 20% of council tax so can see why people get confused. dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

4:40pm Tue 18 Mar 14

S/O man says...

Where is Phil ****'s input? sorry, Phil Cox.
Where is Phil ****'s input? sorry, Phil Cox. S/O man
  • Score: 2

4:50pm Tue 18 Mar 14

WatfordAlex says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Glad to see new filters going in, not impressed about the bridge , like the new paving but think the loss of a differentiated bike route is a mistake. Come on lets get meaningful consultation where other views are taken on board and acted on please!!!
I disagree with you about the cycle paths. Loads of pedestrians ignored the cycle paths and just walked over them as if they were not there. That meant cyclists had to either shout at pedestrians to get out of the way (not nice for anyone), or stop (not great for cyclist) or cycle off into the rest of the area (annoying for pedestrians who expect the cyclists to be on the cycle path). The new system is a lot more honest and gives cyclists and pedestrians more room to negotiate their way around each other. Seems to work better from my limited experience.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Glad to see new filters going in, not impressed about the bridge , like the new paving but think the loss of a differentiated bike route is a mistake. Come on lets get meaningful consultation where other views are taken on board and acted on please!!![/p][/quote]I disagree with you about the cycle paths. Loads of pedestrians ignored the cycle paths and just walked over them as if they were not there. That meant cyclists had to either shout at pedestrians to get out of the way (not nice for anyone), or stop (not great for cyclist) or cycle off into the rest of the area (annoying for pedestrians who expect the cyclists to be on the cycle path). The new system is a lot more honest and gives cyclists and pedestrians more room to negotiate their way around each other. Seems to work better from my limited experience. WatfordAlex
  • Score: 7

6:46pm Tue 18 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

WatfordAlex wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Glad to see new filters going in, not impressed about the bridge , like the new paving but think the loss of a differentiated bike route is a mistake. Come on lets get meaningful consultation where other views are taken on board and acted on please!!!
I disagree with you about the cycle paths. Loads of pedestrians ignored the cycle paths and just walked over them as if they were not there. That meant cyclists had to either shout at pedestrians to get out of the way (not nice for anyone), or stop (not great for cyclist) or cycle off into the rest of the area (annoying for pedestrians who expect the cyclists to be on the cycle path). The new system is a lot more honest and gives cyclists and pedestrians more room to negotiate their way around each other. Seems to work better from my limited experience.
will have to suck and see, but I have felt spooked a couple of times by cyclist without the separation, might be better when it settles down thou > sort of thing
[quote][p][bold]WatfordAlex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Glad to see new filters going in, not impressed about the bridge , like the new paving but think the loss of a differentiated bike route is a mistake. Come on lets get meaningful consultation where other views are taken on board and acted on please!!![/p][/quote]I disagree with you about the cycle paths. Loads of pedestrians ignored the cycle paths and just walked over them as if they were not there. That meant cyclists had to either shout at pedestrians to get out of the way (not nice for anyone), or stop (not great for cyclist) or cycle off into the rest of the area (annoying for pedestrians who expect the cyclists to be on the cycle path). The new system is a lot more honest and gives cyclists and pedestrians more room to negotiate their way around each other. Seems to work better from my limited experience.[/p][/quote]will have to suck and see, but I have felt spooked a couple of times by cyclist without the separation, might be better when it settles down thou > sort of thing dontknowynot
  • Score: 2

7:30pm Tue 18 Mar 14

garry.armstrong232@btinternet.com says...

what a wast of tax paers money why not put it in to something that needs it like watford hospital an not a bloody bridge of the watford pond
what a wast of tax paers money why not put it in to something that needs it like watford hospital an not a bloody bridge of the watford pond garry.armstrong232@btinternet.com
  • Score: 0

9:45pm Tue 18 Mar 14

LocalBoy1 says...

"How the new pond will look" Well the architects impression looks good, but in reality?? I have lost count of the amount of attempts to tart up the pond since the 60's. The pond should have been filled in long ago, it's just a water rubbish tip. Low level niche shops? Open market space? Skating/Skate Boarding/ Roller blading/BMX park? (during the day only of course) instead of shoving all the kids in that tiny "out of the way" space at the bottom of town!!. What a waste of over £4 million? was it?. Well the Lib Dems have very odd ideas of what is good for Watford. Boy do they know how to misuse funding!
"How the new pond will look" Well the architects impression looks good, but in reality?? I have lost count of the amount of attempts to tart up the pond since the 60's. The pond should have been filled in long ago, it's just a water rubbish tip. Low level niche shops? Open market space? Skating/Skate Boarding/ Roller blading/BMX park? (during the day only of course) instead of shoving all the kids in that tiny "out of the way" space at the bottom of town!!. What a waste of over £4 million? was it?. Well the Lib Dems have very odd ideas of what is good for Watford. Boy do they know how to misuse funding! LocalBoy1
  • Score: -1

10:55pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Wee jimmy says...

The Rover wrote:
garston tony wrote:
The council cant spend the money on the areas you mentioned, the money can only be spent on things like this.

Dont like it lobby your MP to have the law changed (and before anyone starts its a law that existed in Labours time too)
A better way to have spent regeneration money would have been to give new businesses a grace period without rent and rates to help establish their business, get all the empty retail units populated and provide local jobs. That would have made the High Street look far more attractive than some paving slabs and a bridge. Some funding could have also been provided to assist with refurbishing the old Artichoke pub which has been empty for years. I understand that the building is so derelict that any potential tenants are put off by the cost.
I can't imagine that the council is the owner of these buildings in which case we the taxpayer would be subsidising private businesses. Common sense says that you make an area look better and invest in it then you'll attract interest in the area. Do nothing and it will just get worse.
[quote][p][bold]The Rover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: The council cant spend the money on the areas you mentioned, the money can only be spent on things like this. Dont like it lobby your MP to have the law changed (and before anyone starts its a law that existed in Labours time too)[/p][/quote]A better way to have spent regeneration money would have been to give new businesses a grace period without rent and rates to help establish their business, get all the empty retail units populated and provide local jobs. That would have made the High Street look far more attractive than some paving slabs and a bridge. Some funding could have also been provided to assist with refurbishing the old Artichoke pub which has been empty for years. I understand that the building is so derelict that any potential tenants are put off by the cost.[/p][/quote]I can't imagine that the council is the owner of these buildings in which case we the taxpayer would be subsidising private businesses. Common sense says that you make an area look better and invest in it then you'll attract interest in the area. Do nothing and it will just get worse. Wee jimmy
  • Score: 2

11:00pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Wee jimmy says...

Cuetip wrote:
The town centre is important but has an an opportunity been missed with a rather extravagant bridge for poo sticks.

Surely priortising some money to St Albans Rd would have been greatly appreciated or is it always politics as to who gets the gravy ?

I suppose in a few years time there will be another town centre spruce up and St Albans Rd will be much the worse for wear.
Again I don't get that. Do you think the council owns all the buildings on St. Albans rd? What can they do? Can't exactly knock it down and rebuild it or affect rents or rates in any way?
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: The town centre is important but has an an opportunity been missed with a rather extravagant bridge for poo sticks. Surely priortising some money to St Albans Rd would have been greatly appreciated or is it always politics as to who gets the gravy ? I suppose in a few years time there will be another town centre spruce up and St Albans Rd will be much the worse for wear.[/p][/quote]Again I don't get that. Do you think the council owns all the buildings on St. Albans rd? What can they do? Can't exactly knock it down and rebuild it or affect rents or rates in any way? Wee jimmy
  • Score: 3

7:33am Wed 19 Mar 14

garston tony says...

garry.armstrong232@b
tinternet.com
wrote:
what a wast of tax paers money why not put it in to something that needs it like watford hospital an not a bloody bridge of the watford pond
You might want to look at previous posts, the council cant spend the money on the hospital it has to be spent on stuff like this saddly.

And its not tax payers money anyway, its most likely money from housing and other building developers.

pay attention
[quote][p][bold]garry.armstrong232@b tinternet.com[/bold] wrote: what a wast of tax paers money why not put it in to something that needs it like watford hospital an not a bloody bridge of the watford pond[/p][/quote]You might want to look at previous posts, the council cant spend the money on the hospital it has to be spent on stuff like this saddly. And its not tax payers money anyway, its most likely money from housing and other building developers. pay attention garston tony
  • Score: -1

7:45am Wed 19 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

Wee jimmy wrote:
Cuetip wrote:
The town centre is important but has an an opportunity been missed with a rather extravagant bridge for poo sticks.

Surely priortising some money to St Albans Rd would have been greatly appreciated or is it always politics as to who gets the gravy ?

I suppose in a few years time there will be another town centre spruce up and St Albans Rd will be much the worse for wear.
Again I don't get that. Do you think the council owns all the buildings on St. Albans rd? What can they do? Can't exactly knock it down and rebuild it or affect rents or rates in any way?
there was a proposal to uplift St Albans road by the Labour group, that would have been better parking pavements and improvements to the public space, not the private property. As to who owns the buildings I fail to see the relevance as the pond road and pavements are not buildings.
Whilst there is stuff to like about the work done on the town centre and to an extent having a pond there is part of the local heritage I do question the bridge.
[quote][p][bold]Wee jimmy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: The town centre is important but has an an opportunity been missed with a rather extravagant bridge for poo sticks. Surely priortising some money to St Albans Rd would have been greatly appreciated or is it always politics as to who gets the gravy ? I suppose in a few years time there will be another town centre spruce up and St Albans Rd will be much the worse for wear.[/p][/quote]Again I don't get that. Do you think the council owns all the buildings on St. Albans rd? What can they do? Can't exactly knock it down and rebuild it or affect rents or rates in any way?[/p][/quote]there was a proposal to uplift St Albans road by the Labour group, that would have been better parking pavements and improvements to the public space, not the private property. As to who owns the buildings I fail to see the relevance as the pond road and pavements are not buildings. Whilst there is stuff to like about the work done on the town centre and to an extent having a pond there is part of the local heritage I do question the bridge. dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

8:16am Wed 19 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

Wee jimmy wrote:
The Rover wrote:
garston tony wrote:
The council cant spend the money on the areas you mentioned, the money can only be spent on things like this.

Dont like it lobby your MP to have the law changed (and before anyone starts its a law that existed in Labours time too)
A better way to have spent regeneration money would have been to give new businesses a grace period without rent and rates to help establish their business, get all the empty retail units populated and provide local jobs. That would have made the High Street look far more attractive than some paving slabs and a bridge. Some funding could have also been provided to assist with refurbishing the old Artichoke pub which has been empty for years. I understand that the building is so derelict that any potential tenants are put off by the cost.
I can't imagine that the council is the owner of these buildings in which case we the taxpayer would be subsidising private businesses. Common sense says that you make an area look better and invest in it then you'll attract interest in the area. Do nothing and it will just get worse.
Finger on the pulse

Regular meetings with businesses as to what needs to be done to ensure healthy trading patterns and ask for ‘exit returns’ from businesses to evaluate reasons for leaving eg is there a need for a better balance to encourage more shopping so the area becomes more of a destination that fulfils a broader range of needs.

A steady turnover of shoppers.

Planning and parking schemes need to be far more sensitive to ensuring that development does not add to more congestion and clutter which acts as a downward pressure on the incomes of established businesses.

Create and then protect an attractive environment.

An absolute must is that planning must ensure that extensions, roof conversions, shop fronts, dormers in roof tops are attractive and enhance the area eg brickwork that shares some harmony with the character of the area, avoidance of box style roof lines covered in shed felt, more visible sensitive planting to avoid the glare of concrete and tar, removal of tatty and redundant street signage.

Building cohesive communities

Ensure that housing developments do not create a more transitory community. Houses of multiple occupancy are more likely to take less care of their area as they have no real long term interest.
[quote][p][bold]Wee jimmy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Rover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: The council cant spend the money on the areas you mentioned, the money can only be spent on things like this. Dont like it lobby your MP to have the law changed (and before anyone starts its a law that existed in Labours time too)[/p][/quote]A better way to have spent regeneration money would have been to give new businesses a grace period without rent and rates to help establish their business, get all the empty retail units populated and provide local jobs. That would have made the High Street look far more attractive than some paving slabs and a bridge. Some funding could have also been provided to assist with refurbishing the old Artichoke pub which has been empty for years. I understand that the building is so derelict that any potential tenants are put off by the cost.[/p][/quote]I can't imagine that the council is the owner of these buildings in which case we the taxpayer would be subsidising private businesses. Common sense says that you make an area look better and invest in it then you'll attract interest in the area. Do nothing and it will just get worse.[/p][/quote]Finger on the pulse Regular meetings with businesses as to what needs to be done to ensure healthy trading patterns and ask for ‘exit returns’ from businesses to evaluate reasons for leaving eg is there a need for a better balance to encourage more shopping so the area becomes more of a destination that fulfils a broader range of needs. A steady turnover of shoppers. Planning and parking schemes need to be far more sensitive to ensuring that development does not add to more congestion and clutter which acts as a downward pressure on the incomes of established businesses. Create and then protect an attractive environment. An absolute must is that planning must ensure that extensions, roof conversions, shop fronts, dormers in roof tops are attractive and enhance the area eg brickwork that shares some harmony with the character of the area, avoidance of box style roof lines covered in shed felt, more visible sensitive planting to avoid the glare of concrete and tar, removal of tatty and redundant street signage. Building cohesive communities Ensure that housing developments do not create a more transitory community. Houses of multiple occupancy are more likely to take less care of their area as they have no real long term interest. Cuetip
  • Score: -3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree