Glanton-on-Line Comments page.
Please note that comments will only be uploaded after they have been checked for their suitability and relevance. Comments that are offensive or irrelevant will not be published on-line.
Glanton telephone kiosk
| Dear Editor, Excellent article and photos. I feel strongly that the village should retain this "icon" as it is not only of historical importance but is of interest to visitors. I recently had visitors from Gloucestershire who were thrilled to find the kiosk in Glanton. Their village no longer has one and they were very envious. A bit of research has revealed that this kiosk probably dates between 1955-65. The coronation crown is on a plate inserted just under the roof. A departure from earlier kiosks. Queen Elizabeth II decided that the crown would be changed after the coronation in 1952. This model is a K6D indicating the age and the design with the door to the right of the back with the hinges at the right. Did you know that the door is solid teak and the hinges are leather? These kiosk are considered important enough that if one wishes they can be Grade II listed. I hope your article will generate sufficient interest to cause the Parish Council to reconsider before the village loses a valuable asset. John Lang 25th. May 2010. |
As a regular visitor to Glanton, I think it is a great shame that a valuable and increasingly rare piece of our National iconic heritage can be discarded in what appears to be such an irresponsible and casual way. L Holman 26th May 2010. |
Having attended the village meeting, where the question was asked about the red phone box, I was appalled that there had been no village communication as to the parish council's decision not to adopt and retain it. I wish to state here that I think it is extremely short sighted and the reasons given at the meeting very flimsy to say the least. These old boxes are of historic interest and will become even more so in the years to come and further adds to the ambience of Glanton. Tina Meikle. 26th May 2010. |
Dear Editor, Thank you for bring this important subject to your pages. Though there has been some warning from the Parish Council that the telephone box maybe withdrawn if not sufficient use is made of it, I feel that the vote not to adopt the box has at best been hasty. I would be interested to know what BT's target figure for box use is? I suggest there maybe some scope there for creative thinking. Having done a small amount of research I find rather than adopting a box it is possible to sponsor a box for an annual contribution to BT for maintenance, has this option been offered to the Parish Council? Sponsoring not only retains the box but a box in working order. Our Gilbert Scott red box has been a feature of village life for many years and it was felt important enough when it was moved from Front Street for it to be refurbished and there was some debate for its position and its retention; of course at that time the alterative was a modern plate glass almost invisible box so memorable that I am unable to find a BT model type. Our box is within the Conservation Area, is a historic feature and would have merit for Listing. Although we do not seem to have an immediate use for the box, a feature it is and long may it remain. Richard Verrill. 27th May 2010. PS Look what trouble people take to have a red box http://muraldesign.co.uk/TrompeLoeil/telephone_box_page.htm |
Although I was not at the meeting of the Parish Council when the decision was taken not to adopt the phone box I was at some earlier meetings where the subject was discussed, so maybe I can shed some light on the thinking behind it. Firstly even if the PC adopted it, it would cease to be a functioning phone box as the usage is very far below the level which BT considers viable and the cost of subsidising it as a functioning phone box was out of proportion to the benefit. We did then consider whether it had a useful function outside of it's intended one, but we could not see what it might sensibly be used for. There are liabilities associated with adopting it which would be an ongoing cost to the village purse and bearing in mind that we may have to take responsibilty for several functions previously carried out by Alnwick District Council if the County refuse to continue - I refer to things like bus stops, grass cutting, clearing footpaths etc which are all currently County responsibilites but which they would like to push onto Parish and Town Councils - the PC have been concerned to keep the precept down and that was the main driver behind the decision - it is money which comes directly from the villagers and there are not many of us to share the costs. Naturally if enough village people tell us that they do want to keep it even if it does cost a bit, and if anyone can point out to us what it could be used for then we could revisit the decision, but we would need to be convinced that the village as a whole really want it. Jon Radgick Parish Council Chairman |
Dear Editor, Attached is a link concerning one of the latest kiosks to be adopted in a village very much the same as ours. http://www.btplc.com/news/Articles/ShowArticle.cfm?ArticleID=7D83C24B-78CB-4649-A333-43E6288FC1A5 This link covers the competition re the use of telephone kiosks http://www.btplc.com/news/articles/showarticle.cfm?articleid={79551b96-86fb-4431-87b1-b3e0207bd1d7} And another for good luck http://www.heraldseries.co.uk/news/hswantagenews/4592604.Village_steps_in_to_save_its_red_telephone_box/ By the way, Susan as well as myself are keen to contribute to any refurbishment if necessary in order to keep the box. If there are queries about the suitability of the current location, then a nice spot would be on the village green near the Whittingham Road sign. John Lang |
Dear Editor, I would add my voice to those supporting the retention of the telephone kiosk. The red kiosks are part of our English heritage and it's part of the village - we should be proud to have the opportunity to keep it. I'm a little surprised by the implication that an historical item needs to have a "use" identified before the Parish Council's decision can be revisited. What exactly are the liabilities and the costs associated with keeping it? If 500 have already been adopted then surely there are 500 villages who can help define these - that's a pretty sizable pool of knowledge! Peter Lake - 7 June 2010 |
A challenge for those villagers keen to keep the red phone box - if the Parish Council were to review it's decision and if it did decide to adopt the phone box (and I am not saying that would happen) would there be two or three individuals who would collectively take responsibility for painting it, maintaining it and keeping it clean? And are there suggestions as to how it could be used? Jon Radgick |
I will certainly rise to the challenge set by Jon Radgick. I have already stated that I am prepared to contribute financially to any initial refurbishment necessary. I will also be responsible jointly with anyone else to maintain the box. Once we own the box and have refurbished it, then is the time to discuss with the village how it should be used. It would be nice if it was used but it is in my mind not compulsory to have a stated use. There are many listed buildings in this country that do not have a use - per se. It is a historic building sitting in a conservation area and as such is part of the heritage of Glanton village. John Lang 08/06/2010 |
Editor's comment. In addition to the comments on this page a number of people in the village, who are either reluctant to join a forum debate or do not have internet access, have expressed their opposition to the proposed removal of the red box. I have received no comments supporting its removal. It is generally understood that the phone use has reached an unfortunate level where it is no longer economic but the idea of removing an item of architectural heritage, such as the kiosk itself, from the village is not acceptable to them. The majority of people, objecting to the removal of the kiosk, view possible alternative uses as a secondary matter when compared with the retention of our heritage. Alternative uses, at the end of the day, are only limited by imagination and will be found. In rejecting adoption the Parish Council listed a number of reasons why the scheme was unacceptable including Health and Safety and maintenance issues. In my own research, which is limited and I stand to be corrected, I have not come across nor has it been reported that Health and Safety, insurance or other such aspects have caused any problems out of the ordinary for councils who have already adopted a box. Maintenance however is recognized as a not altogether appreciated on-going commitment and it is interesting to note that in this respect I have received to date the names of at least five villagers who are prepared to donate in both practical and financial terms. It would help the balance of this debate if a contribution or two were to be made by those villagers who support the removal of the box. After all, the 'No' vote won the night and at the moment the debate here is a bit one sided with the exception of Jon Radgick who has outlined the financial, utilization and budgetary issues. What are the other issues that were deemed unacceptable? It has been suggested that the decision was dominated by over-caution in the face of improbable situations and a fear of a society where excessive use of Health and Safety legislation can give rise to unreasonable litigation. Is this true or false? What should prevail at the end of this debate is common sense and a realistic and healthy support for our environment. A.M. 08/06/2010 |
Dear Editor, It will not come as a surprise that I am in favour of adopting our Red Telephone Box as those who were at the Village PC meeting will know I offered to take our Box into safe custody if the PC would not. I would like to add to my previous posting that I too am willing to support the long term survival of our box in anyway I can. As a matter of interest does anybody know the number of Red boxes left in our District this side of the A1? They seem to be quite rare. I have done my own research but would like it confirmed. Richard Verrill 08/06/2010 |
Dear Editor, Like many other people in the village I am keen to retain and enhance the character of the village and therefore would support the retention of the phone box. If other Parish Councils take over the liabilities of a box, why can't Glanton? I suggest the Parish Council does reconsider their decision and concentrate on how we keep the phone box and how the problems are overcome rather than reasons why the box cannot be retained. Mike Mason 08/06/2010 |
Dear Editor, PARISH COUNCIL As far as I understand it the Parish Council is elected (or in Glantons case co-opted) to look after the affairs of the village. In which case there is no need for every decision to be referred to a "village referendum". However, the Parish Council can only function properly if they are in tune with parishioners views. How are they to know what the views of the village are if Councillors are not told and none of the electorate attend Parish council meetings as members of the public? On the other hand how are villagers to know what is being discussed if Agendas are not published in some easily accessed form? To overcome this chicken and egg situation may I suggest that more members of the public attend Parish Council meetings and make their views known and that the Parish Council publish Agendas well in advance of meetings, possibly via this excellent web site. Minutes should also be published soon after a meeting (see editor's note below). That way Parish Councillors may get to know the views of the people they purport to represent. Mike Mason 08/06/2010 Editors note: I have been advised by the PC Chairman that minutes will be posted to this web site after they have been approved by the council. They are normally approved at the following meeting in the diary. AM. |
Dear Editor, I note your discussions on the website about the fate of the red telephone box and your request for an opposing view. In fact I abstained on the issue so technically I am not on the other side of the argument but fully support the decision the other members of the Council made. I was at the second Parish Council meeting that discussed the possibility of adopting the box. One of our councillors had kindly summarised the several pages of conditions that BT were imposing on the sale of the box. You can find the full document following your link then selecting the tab 'How to apply' then select 'Download Agreement'. I was asked to give my opinion about the implications to the parish of adopting the box, which I did. The main issues the Parish Council had to consider were the risks associated with adopting the box. The nature of the conditions was such that they committed the Council to actions now and in the future. I explained that it would be much easier if a future use for the box was determined. We would be obliged to undertake a full risk assessment before we could consider adopting the box and an actual purpose for the box would make this much easier. Health and safety implications must be taken into account by Parish Councils. The risk assessments form part of the annual audit therefore are important documents. I cannot comment on what happens in other parishes in this forum. As an example the risk assessment would need to include: Who owns the land and what implications would that have; Implications of the use of leaded paint; Requirements of other bodies (Highways Agency, Planning Authority, Emergency Services etc); Volunteers and continuity of volunteers to maintain the box; Health and Safety issues; Dangers to faults in the structure; implications of doors sticking; Future disposal (the Parish Council could not dispose of the box unless to another authority); Understand and operate within Planning Rules for future use; etc. There are financial implications that would also need costing in. I am in favour of seeking the help of volunteers to take on projects as long as everyone realises it is an ongoing commitment and that once purchased the box will be an asset and a liability for the Council; only the County Council could then take it over and I am certain they would not in the current financial climate. On balance the Council decided that the level of liability was too great for the benefits on the information we had at the time. We have limited capacity as a Council and are being asked to do much more, a lot of which people never see. As you are probably aware I am personally more concerned about people than place although acknowledge both are important. I am concerned about the loss of facilities in the rural areas as money at County level gets tighter. I am making considerable efforts to try and help prevent services from being withdrawn from the older members of our community as "Personalisation" threatens some services. (We do have a consultative event organised for this issue. Page 11 of the Newsletter refers.) I am also concerned that other services will be withdrawn as the County Council cuts budgets. I can understand it is easier to support an 'icon' but my limited energies need to concentrate on what I feel important: the people of the Parish. As with the box, once the services for the less able disappear they will be much harder to reinstate. I am therefore happy to leave you to your debate and will be overjoyed if you find a workable solution. If it comes before the Parish Council again I for one would be happy to reconsider the position and would encourage the volunteers to obtain the costings, initial and ongoing, and undertake the risk assessment to cut out further delays. It would be a great help to the Council if, while looking at the box, the assessment also covered the bus stop and seating which will also be transferred to the Parish Council next year. Norman Dunn 10/06/2010 |
| Dear Editor This morning I took a delivery first thing, while waiting for the payment the driver without any prompt said "Isn't it nice to see a red telephone box, you don't see many of them around." Richard Verrill 15/06/2010 |
Send your comments to the editor
Views and opinions on this page are expressed by persons contributing to the debate. GlantonOnLine cannot accept any responsibility whatsoever for the views and opinions expressed by others.