Ongoing research; last updated 25 October 2012
11th January 1908 – Birmingham News
Kings Norton and Northfield Urban District Council
(Nb A whole page is given to a report of a very long meeting: the report contains the following extract:)
Tennis Courts at Cotteridge
The Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee ................ recommended that two tennis courts and a bowling green be laid out at the Cotteridge Park, at an estimated cost of £125, and that the work be carried out departmentally. .............................
Councillor J.C. Lane objected to public money being spent in catering for tennis players and bowlers, but withdrew his opposition on being told by Councillor Shann that the committee, judging by the experience of a small private park that had provided such facilities last summer, were likely to make a profit out of the venture.
Councillor Bishop also protested against provision being made for lawn tennis at the Cotteridge whilst Kings Heath children had to play in the gutter. He thought Kings Heath should be provided with a park before further expenditure was incurred in other parts of the district.
Councillor Grant replied that if the Kings Heath members found a site, the Baths and Parks Committee would do the rest.
Councillor W. Colley pointed out that the Kings Heath members had already prepared a scheme which was now under consideration by the Baths and Parks Committee.
13th January 1908 – KN&N UDC, Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee (Sub-Committee)
Proposed Park at King’s Heath
Major Cartland attended the meeting for the purpose of discussing the proposed acquisition by the Council of part of the Priory Estate, King’s Heath for the purposes of a public park.
The Chairman explained to Major Cartland that the Sub-Committee were authorised to offer him, for the 15 acres, the sum of £10,000, plus either a further sum of £500 or half of the cost of making a road on the north western boundary of the land. Major Cartland stated that the Company which he represented could not accept the offer of the Committee, but they would be prepared to sell the 18 acres for the sum of £14,000, or they would be prepared to sell the 15 acres for the sum of £12,000 with an option to purchase the remaining 3 acres for the sum of £2,000 within a period of not less than three years.
15th January 1908 – KN&N UDC, Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee
Proposed Recreation Grounds
(a) Kings Heath
The Minutes of a meeting of the Sub-Committee appointed to negotiate with Major Cartland in this matter held on the 13th January 1908, were read as a report of such Sub-Committee.
Resolved:- That owing to the small attendance at this meeting the consideration of the matter be deferred until a future meeting of the Committee.
28th January 1908 – KN&N UDC, Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee (Special meeting)
Proposed Park at Kings Heath – report of Sub-Committee
The Minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee appointed to negotiate with Major Cartland in this matter held on the 13th January 1908, were read as a report of such Sub-Committee.
Resolved:- That the report be approved.
The Committee very fully considered the question of increasing their previous offer to Major Cartland and ultimately it was
Resolved:- That the Clerk be instructed to write to Major Cartland offering (subject to the approval of the Council) to purchase the 15 acres for the sum of £11,000, subject to his granting the Council an option to purchase the remaining three acres for the sum of £2,000 within a period not exceeding five years.
1st February 1908 – Birmingham News
(At the end of a longer report:)
With regard to the proposed park for Kings Heath, he could tell them that the representatives of other districts were anxious that they should have a park, and while he could not enter into details yet he believed that within a very short time a park for Kings Heath would be purchased and opened.
3rd February 1908 – KN&N UDC, Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee (Special meeting)
Proposed Park at Kings Heath
Mr. Councillor Coley reported that he had seen Major Cartland who had offered to accept the sum of £11,000 for part of the Priory Estate, King’s Heath, comprising 15 acres or thereabouts, but he would only grant an option to purchase the remaining 3 acres for the sum of £3,000 within a period of one year.
12th February 1908 – Minute of KN&N UDC, Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee
Proposed Recreation Grounds
(a) Kings Heath
The Clerk read the following letter from Major Cartland in regard to the proposed park at King’s Heath:-
1st February 1908 – Birmingham News
Kings Heath Ratepayers Association
Annual Meeting
The Criticisms of the Kings Heath Council: Councillor Coley Replies
(At the end of a longer report:)
With regard to the proposed park for Kings Heath, he could tell them that the representatives of other districts were anxious that they should have a park, and while he could not enter into details yet he believed that within a very short time a park for Kings Heath would be purchased and opened.
3rd February 1908 – KN&N UDC, Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee (Special meeting)
Proposed Park at Kings Heath
Mr. Councillor Coley reported that he had seen Major Cartland who had offered to accept the sum of £11,000 for part of the Priory Estate, King’s Heath, comprising 15 acres or thereabouts, but he would only grant an option to purchase the remaining 3 acres for the sum of £3,000 within a period of one year.
12th February 1908 – Minute of KN&N UDC, Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee
Proposed Recreation Grounds
(a) Kings Heath
The Clerk read the following letter from Major Cartland in regard to the proposed park at King’s Heath:-
“Priory Estate Company, Ltd.
King’s Heath
February 5th, 1908
Edwin Docker, Esq.
Clerk to the King’s Norton District Council,
10 Newhall Street,
Birmingham.
Dear Sir,
Proposed Park at King’s Heath
In further reply to your letter of the 29th ultimo, I have submitted same to my Directors, and they are disposed to accept the offer of your Council of £11,000 for the 15 acres of the King’s Heath House Estate with the mansion and lodge thereon, subject to their obtaining the formal consent of all parties interested therein, which I do not anticipate there will be any difficulty in doing.
With regard to the acquisition of the further three acres there is a legal difficulty in giving an option, but I think there is no doubt your clients could acquire the same within 12 months for a further payment of £3,000 but my Directors would not accept a less sum.
I shall be glad to hear from you in due course.
I remain,
Yours faithfully,
J. Howard Cartland.
Chairman of Directors”
Resolved to recommend:- That the offer set out in the above letter of Major Cartland be accepted and that application be made to the Local Government Board for their sanction to borrow the sum of £11,000 towards the purchase of such park.
4th March 1908 – Minute of KN&N UDC
In the absence of the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Councillor Coley presented the following report of the Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee.
Your committee beg to report:-
4. Proposed Park at King’s Heath
That they have been in negotiation for some time past with Major J, Howard Cartland, of the Priory, King’s Heath, with a view to the acquisition from the Priory Estate Company, Limited, of a piece of land fronting Vicarage Road and Avenue Road, comprising fifteen acres or thereabouts, and forming part of the Priory Estate, King’s Heath, with the mansion and lodge thereon, known as “King’s Heath House” for the purposes of a public park, and they have received an offer from the company to sell to the Council such land, with the mansion and lodge, for the sum of £15,000; but the company have agreed to contribute the sum of £4,000 towards the cost of purchasing the park, making the actual purchase money £11,000. Your committee beg to recommend that, subject to the terms of the contract being approved by the clerk, the land be purchased for the sum of £11,000, and that application be made to the Local Government Board for their sanction to borrow the said sum for that purpose.
It was moved by Mr. Councillor Coley, and seconded by Mr. Councillor Bishop,
110 That, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board and to the terms of the contract being approved by the clerk, a piece of land fronting Vicarage Road and Avenue Road, King’s Heath, comprising 15 acres or thereabouts, and forming part of the Priory Estate, with the mansion and lodge thereon, known as “King’s Heath House”, be purchased from the Priory Estate Company, Limited, for the purposes of a public park, for the sum of £11,000.
As an Amendment –
It was moved by Mr. Councillor Hayes, and seconded by Mr. Councillor Kelley,
That, on account of the large expenditure involved in the proposal, the matter be referred back to the Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee for further consideration.
Upon a vote being taken there appeared –
For the amendment ………… 9
Mr. Councillor Callwood, Farrell, Harbun, Hayes, Kelley, Payne, Quinney, Shephard, Wilson.
Against the amendment ………….. 13
Mr. Councillor Bednall, Bishop, Bradbury, Brown, Bryan, Cocks, Coley, Fryer, Grant, Lane, Mason, Parton, Whittaker.
Neutral ……………………..2
Councillor Dr. Lilley and Mr. Councillor Moffat.
The Chairman thereupon declared the amendment lost.
Upon the original motion being put to the vote, there appeared:-
For the motion ……………….14
Mr. Councillor Bednall, Bishop, Bradbury, Brown, Bryan, Cocks, Coley, Fryer, Grant, Lane, Mason, Parton, Payne, Whittaker.
Against the motion ………………… 8
Mr. Councillor Callwood, Farrell, Harbun, Hayes, Kelley, Quinney, Shephard, Wilson.
Neutral ……………………..2
Councillor Dr. Lilley and Mr. Councillor Moffat.
The Chairman thereupon declared the motion carried, and it was resolved accordingly.
It was moved by Mr. Councillor Coley, and seconded by Mr. Councillor Lane, and
Resolved:-
111 That application be made to the Local Government Board for their sanction to the borrowing of the sum of £11,000 in respect of the cost of purchasing from the Priory Estate Company, Limited, a piece of land fronting to Vicarage Road and Avenue Road, King’s Heath, comprising 15 acres or thereabouts, and forming part of the Priory Estate, with the mansion and lodge thereon, known as “King’s Heath House”, for the purposes of a public park.
It was moved by Mr. Councillor Coley, seconded by Mr. Councillor Fryer, and
Resolved:-
112 That the report of the Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee, as amended, be approved and adopted.
7th March 1908 – Birmingham News
For a considerable time past it has been a source of continual complaint at Moseley and Kings Heath that the bulk of the attention, as well as the expenditure, of the Kings Norton and Northfield Urban District Council was monopolized by Selly Oak, Stirchley, and Kings Norton districts. What real justification there was for the complaint matters little; the feeling that an injustice was being done to two of the most important component parts of the community was deep-rooted and insistent. But after Wednesday’s decision of the Council to purchase fifteen acres of the Priory Estate, together with the mansion known as Kings Heath House, for the purposes of a public park for Kings Heath, at a cost of £11,000, we should imagine that the feeling of irritation which has existed will be more or less completely allayed. The decision certainly provides solid ground for the establishment of closer unity and co-operation in the work of local government as it affects the community as a whole. The only matter of regret is that the proposal was not carried unanimously. It would have been a graceful thing if, under the circumstances, all the members of the Council had followed the example of Councillor Payne, who, when the amendment had been defeated, said he thought it only right that he should co-operate in seeing the project through, and voted for the resolution. A convincing case in favour of the scheme was made out by Councillors Coley and Brown, whose speeches, and especially that of Mr. Brown, may be commended to those who may be inclined to regard the project with disfavor. The necessity of a park for these rapidly growing districts is undoubted, and the fact that suitable land is becoming more and more scarce every year, and if the present opportunity had been allowed to pass an equally favourable chance of obtaining such a splendid site might not have occurred again, constitutes in itself an invincible argument in support of the Council’s enterprise.
The suggestion that the company owning the land have given £4,000 towards the purchase was, we think, fittingly described by Councillor Whittaker as “a piece of pious humbug”. No doubt the Council have got full value for their money, but it would be an exaggeration to say that they have got more. The company might have had a stronger claim to be regarded as public benefactors had they given the land to the community for the sake of the improvement that would be offered to the remainder of their estate. The idea was mooted of converting the house into public offices, but if, as Councillor Coley stated, it would cost as much to adapt the building for such a purpose as it would to build entirely new offices it would be absurd to waste money upon it. In view of the feeling that was manifested in certain quarters we may perhaps be pardoned for expressing the hope that the fact of this expenditure being incurred for the benefit of Moseley and Kings Heath will not be used next week as an argument against the expenditure upon public offices. The offices question should be, and we hope will be, decided upon its merits quite apart from any other consideration whatever. For the rest we trust that now the scheme for providing a park for Kings Heath and Moseley has been agreed upon the members of the District Council as a whole will heartily unite in making it one that will be a credit to the community. It would be a mistaken course from every point of view to spoil the ship for the proverbial “haporth of tar”. A first class park would do much to add to the attractiveness of Kings Heath as a residential suburb, and from this point of view alone would be a good investment. We feel convinced that any reasonable outlay involved in making the park one worthy of the name would meet with general public approbation, since thoroughness in matters of this kind is obviously the soundest policy.
Whatever others may say, Kings Heath people are quite satisfied with the results of the efforts of the Parks Committee of the Kings Norton and Northfield Urban District Council to provide them with a public park. The land secured will be a priceless boon to future generations when every other piece of ground is built on. It is locally considered to be a good thing that one of Kings Heath’s largest houses should be saved from demolition. It may, I am told, be decided that some rooms shall be used as a museum. I gather that Kings Heath House, although not an ancient structure, is full of years, having been erected at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The title deeds, in the possession of Messrs. Foster and Co., solicitors to the Priory Estate Company, show that the house was once owned by the Tarletons, and afterwards by the Ingleby family, both formerly distinguished in the legal profession of Birmingham. The late Mr. John Cartland, the founder of the present Cartland family, purchased it nearly thirty years ago from the Ingleby Trustees, and when Mr. F. Everitt, J.P. lived there the house underwent extensive alterations, at a cost of nearly £6,000, the late Mr. J. Cartland paying half that sum. The grounds are remarkably well adapted to the purpose. The sward is level, and will afford a capital cricket pitch, and the grounds are well wooded. During the tenancy of Mr. and Mrs. Scarfe, and of Mr. G. Greey, the gardens were maintained in style, and little expense should be needed to put the place into a park like condition. The main entrance is through an avenue of stately trees. Altogether Kings Heath people have every reason to be proud of their new acquisition.
An ambitious proposal for the acquirement of 15 acres of land at a cost of £11,000 to provide a public park for Kings Heath formed the main topic of debate at the monthly meeting on Wednesday afternoon of the Kings Norton and Northfield Urban District Council, Councillor J.W.B. Brown (Chairman) presided, and there were but three absentee members (Councillors G. Shann, H. Spencer and T.Y. Allen). The two latter were ill; while Mr. Shann had been summoned to London to give evidence before the Select Committee upon Home Work. Councillor Shann is Chairman of the Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee, which made the recommendation for the acquirement of the land, and in his letter of apology he stated that he was quite in favour of the project.
Councillor Bishop seconded the proposition. He described the land as “a beautiful spot”, and said he had been wishing for a park for Kings Heath ever since he had been on the Council.
Councillor Kelly seconded the amendment. He was not against Kings Heath having a park, but thought the committee ought to see if they could not propound a more modest scheme.
Councillor Lane supported the proposal. He hoped the Council would know what the total expense would be if they acquired the land, as in connection with the parks in other parts of the district many items of expenditure had cropped up after they had been acquired. He also asked if it was necessary to have the whole 15 acres, or if they could not get some of the money back by utilizing part of the land for a building scheme. Again, if by spending a reasonable sum of money the house could be turned into public offices he would welcome the scheme open handed. (Hear, hear.)
Councillor Mason, in supporting, said that if the committee had searched the whole kingdom through they could not have found a more charming place: it was an ideal spot for the purpose. In the laying out there would be very little expense. Mr. Hayes said they were buying a mansion: as a matter of fact they were begging one. He also said they were touching the poor man’s pocket; in reality they were touching the poor man’s health. (Hear, hear.) The inhabitants of the surrounding districts would derive incalculable benefit from it. Some part of the place could be profitably utilized. There were magnificent green houses, which might be used as a centre for producing bedding out stuff say for the whole of the cemeteries and parks of the district. A temporary school was needed for Kings Heath: there were rooms in the house which would make ideal class rooms. Instead of being, as Mr. Hayes asserted, out in the fields, it was in the midst of a population of nearly 13,000 people, and in a very short time this population would be increased to 20,000.
Councillor Bradbury, in supporting the recommendation, remarked that Mr. Hayes waxed sarcastic at the expense of Moseley, apparently forgetting that there was a large number of poor people at Kings Heath who would make daily use of such a park. The shopkeeper would benefit by that use. He did not know what Councillor Hayes would call the centre of the population if he called the site of the park its outskirts, but at any rate any other suitable piece of land could not be obtained which was not a good deal more on the outskirts.
Councillor Harbun opposed the recommendation. In addition to the initial outlay there was the cost of fencing and laying out - (A voice: It is all done) – the upkeep of the park, and the provision of a park-keeper. All things considered he thought the park would cost the district a penny rate, and that was a very serious consideration.
Councillor Parton supported the resolution. He did not think the committee could have selected a more suitable site.
Councillor Bednall also supported the resolution. If members would remember that they legislated for the whole district and not for one particular portion their work would be much easier, and would occasion much less friction. He sympathized with Councillor Whittaker’s objection with regard to the £4,000. In buying an article the seller did not, when it was objected that the price was too high, say he would provide half the purchase money. He did not think that was the right thing at all. The purchase price of the park was £11,000, and they were paying the value for what they got. To his mind there was no gift of £4,000 about it. He sympathized with what was being done to obtain open spaces, and hoped the day would come when authorities would be compelled, as a matter of duty, to provide them. If they missed that opportunity of getting a park the possibility was that they would lose a very valuable site. He believed the land and the locality were all that had been said of them, and felt certain that the park would soon be surrounded by houses. Unless they secured land now they would soon be in the position they were in at Bournbrook, where all the land was covered with bricks and mortar.
Councillor Fryer, in supporting, said he did so in the first instance because no other suitable land was obtainable, and the committee searched exhaustively. If they did not take the offer he confessed he was very doubtful if they would be able to make adequate provision for that part of the district. The question of the nearness of the land to the population had been raised; in many parts of the district the people were living at from 120 to 150 to the acre, and a good many of them were not far from that piece of land. He did not regard it entirely as a provision for Kings Heath, but as part of the equipment of the whole district. If it had been possible to bring forward any scheme less expensive, less elaborate, that scheme would have had his consistent and steady support. It was only because he regarded the scheme submitted as being practically all that was open in that part of the district that he was supporting it. He thought those who had raised the question of the £4,000 had taken a very reasonable attitude. He thought £11,000 a fair value for the land.
Councillor Shephard opposed the recommendation. The proposal he declared to be contrary to all the principles. Expensive parks such as that were absolutely ornamental white elephants. They did not meet the needs of the district at all. The people they got into such parks had for the most part plenty of open ground of their own. For £11,000 they could provide three good open spaces in which the children could romp about. They did not want places where the moment one got inside they were told to “keep off the grass”, and a little further up were told not “to touch the flowers”, which cost £5 or £6 a week to keep in repair, and a man to keep the children outside. (Laughter.)
Councillor Farrell thought that on a matter of such importance the whole of the members ought to have an opportunity of seeing the land before voting upon its purchase. He could not vote in the dark.
Councillor Quinney said he had always advocated open spaces, and the Council was particularly pledged to obtain a park for Kings Heath, whose members had always helped to obtain open spaces for other parts of the district. But if Councillor Hayes knew, as he said he did, of land that could be bought for half the price, he was going to vote for the amendment. Even if Councillor Hayes had not thrown out that suggestion, however, he could not have voted for the outlay of £11,000; he thought the sum altogether disproportionate to the needs of the case. If no other land could be obtained he did not see why they should not forego the purchase of the whole of the frontage, and let the vendors make a good price of it for building purposes. That would probably reduce the purchase price by at least 25 per cent.
Councillor Grant supported the resolution. It was a large sum to spend, and would hit the ratepayers very hard, but the spot was a unique one, and one that the Council should not lose. It would take 60 to 70 years for an estate planted now to reach the state of this one, even if it ever did so. He disagreed with the idea of taking off the frontage for building purposes, that would spoil the beautiful belt of trees. There were six or seven acres perfectly adaptable for cricket and for the use of the children, as Mr. Whittaker wanted. Moseley and Kings Heath had always supported Selly Oak and Stirchley when the latter wanted anything, and there was a tacit understanding that the representatives of these districts should support Kings Heath when it asked for a park. He considered it his duty to support the proposal. The park would serve not only Kings Heath, but the top end of Stirchley and Dogpool as well.
For the amendment: Messrs. Callwood, Farrell, Harbun, Hayes, Kelley, Payne, Quinney, Shephard and Wilson.
Against the amendment: Messrs. Bednall, Bishop, Bradbury, Brown, Bryan, Cocks, Coley, Fryer, Grant, Lane, Mason, Parton and Whittaker.
For the committee’s recommendation: Messrs. Bednall, Bishop, Bradbury, Brown, Bryan, Cocks, Coley, Fryer, Grant, Lane, Mason, Parton, Payne and Whittaker.
Against the recommendation: Messrs. Callwood, Farrell, Harbun, Hayes, Kelley, Quinney, Shephard and Wilson.
Neutral: Dr. Lilley and Mr. Moffatt. Fourteen votes for, 8 against, 2 neutral. The alteration in the voting was occasioned by Mr. Payne, upon the amendment being defeated, deciding to vote for the recommendation. “Having been defeated and it being inevitable that the proposal should be carried, I think it only right that we should cooperate in seeing it through”, said Mr. Payne to our representative.
At a meeting of the Selly Oak and Bournbrook Tradesmen’s and Ratepayers’ Association, on Thursday evening, at Selly Oak Institute, Mr. W.A. Roberts presiding, Councillor A.C. Hayes, who was present, expressed his views on the proposal to purchase the park, and a strong opinion amongst those present against it, on the ground of the extravagance, was disclosed. Mr. I. Usherwood moved and Mr. Roberts seconded that a special general meeting of the association, to discuss the question, be called for Wednesday evening next, at the Institute, at 8.15 p.m. This was carried. Mr. H.W. Stephens gave notice that at that meeting he would move that the association record its protest against the proposal, and petition the Local Government Board for an enquiry to be held prior to sanctioning the proposed loan.
11th March 1908 – Minute of KN&N UDC, Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee
7th March 1908 – Birmingham News
Notes of the Week
For a considerable time past it has been a source of continual complaint at Moseley and Kings Heath that the bulk of the attention, as well as the expenditure, of the Kings Norton and Northfield Urban District Council was monopolized by Selly Oak, Stirchley, and Kings Norton districts. What real justification there was for the complaint matters little; the feeling that an injustice was being done to two of the most important component parts of the community was deep-rooted and insistent. But after Wednesday’s decision of the Council to purchase fifteen acres of the Priory Estate, together with the mansion known as Kings Heath House, for the purposes of a public park for Kings Heath, at a cost of £11,000, we should imagine that the feeling of irritation which has existed will be more or less completely allayed. The decision certainly provides solid ground for the establishment of closer unity and co-operation in the work of local government as it affects the community as a whole. The only matter of regret is that the proposal was not carried unanimously. It would have been a graceful thing if, under the circumstances, all the members of the Council had followed the example of Councillor Payne, who, when the amendment had been defeated, said he thought it only right that he should co-operate in seeing the project through, and voted for the resolution. A convincing case in favour of the scheme was made out by Councillors Coley and Brown, whose speeches, and especially that of Mr. Brown, may be commended to those who may be inclined to regard the project with disfavor. The necessity of a park for these rapidly growing districts is undoubted, and the fact that suitable land is becoming more and more scarce every year, and if the present opportunity had been allowed to pass an equally favourable chance of obtaining such a splendid site might not have occurred again, constitutes in itself an invincible argument in support of the Council’s enterprise.
The suggestion that the company owning the land have given £4,000 towards the purchase was, we think, fittingly described by Councillor Whittaker as “a piece of pious humbug”. No doubt the Council have got full value for their money, but it would be an exaggeration to say that they have got more. The company might have had a stronger claim to be regarded as public benefactors had they given the land to the community for the sake of the improvement that would be offered to the remainder of their estate. The idea was mooted of converting the house into public offices, but if, as Councillor Coley stated, it would cost as much to adapt the building for such a purpose as it would to build entirely new offices it would be absurd to waste money upon it. In view of the feeling that was manifested in certain quarters we may perhaps be pardoned for expressing the hope that the fact of this expenditure being incurred for the benefit of Moseley and Kings Heath will not be used next week as an argument against the expenditure upon public offices. The offices question should be, and we hope will be, decided upon its merits quite apart from any other consideration whatever. For the rest we trust that now the scheme for providing a park for Kings Heath and Moseley has been agreed upon the members of the District Council as a whole will heartily unite in making it one that will be a credit to the community. It would be a mistaken course from every point of view to spoil the ship for the proverbial “haporth of tar”. A first class park would do much to add to the attractiveness of Kings Heath as a residential suburb, and from this point of view alone would be a good investment. We feel convinced that any reasonable outlay involved in making the park one worthy of the name would meet with general public approbation, since thoroughness in matters of this kind is obviously the soundest policy.
----------------------------------------------
Village Gossip
Kings Heath and the Park
Whatever others may say, Kings Heath people are quite satisfied with the results of the efforts of the Parks Committee of the Kings Norton and Northfield Urban District Council to provide them with a public park. The land secured will be a priceless boon to future generations when every other piece of ground is built on. It is locally considered to be a good thing that one of Kings Heath’s largest houses should be saved from demolition. It may, I am told, be decided that some rooms shall be used as a museum. I gather that Kings Heath House, although not an ancient structure, is full of years, having been erected at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The title deeds, in the possession of Messrs. Foster and Co., solicitors to the Priory Estate Company, show that the house was once owned by the Tarletons, and afterwards by the Ingleby family, both formerly distinguished in the legal profession of Birmingham. The late Mr. John Cartland, the founder of the present Cartland family, purchased it nearly thirty years ago from the Ingleby Trustees, and when Mr. F. Everitt, J.P. lived there the house underwent extensive alterations, at a cost of nearly £6,000, the late Mr. J. Cartland paying half that sum. The grounds are remarkably well adapted to the purpose. The sward is level, and will afford a capital cricket pitch, and the grounds are well wooded. During the tenancy of Mr. and Mrs. Scarfe, and of Mr. G. Greey, the gardens were maintained in style, and little expense should be needed to put the place into a park like condition. The main entrance is through an avenue of stately trees. Altogether Kings Heath people have every reason to be proud of their new acquisition.
----------------------------------
Public Park for Kings Heath
Part of the Priory Estate to be Purchased
£11,000 to be Spent
Proposal carried after a fine debate
An ambitious proposal for the acquirement of 15 acres of land at a cost of £11,000 to provide a public park for Kings Heath formed the main topic of debate at the monthly meeting on Wednesday afternoon of the Kings Norton and Northfield Urban District Council, Councillor J.W.B. Brown (Chairman) presided, and there were but three absentee members (Councillors G. Shann, H. Spencer and T.Y. Allen). The two latter were ill; while Mr. Shann had been summoned to London to give evidence before the Select Committee upon Home Work. Councillor Shann is Chairman of the Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee, which made the recommendation for the acquirement of the land, and in his letter of apology he stated that he was quite in favour of the project.
The Committee’s Recommendation
The committee stated that they had been in negotiations for some time past with Major J. Howard Cartland, of the Priory, Kings Heath, with a view to the acquisition from the Priory Estate Company, Limited, of a piece of land fronting to Vicarage Road and Avenue Road, comprising fifteen acres or thereabouts, and forming part of the Priory Estate, Kings Heath, with the mansion and lodge thereon, known as “Kings Heath House”, for the purposes of a public park, and they had received an offer from the company to sell to the Council such land, with the mansion and lodge, for the sum of £15,000; but the company had agreed to contribute the sum of £4,000 towards the cost of purchasing the park, making the actual purchase money £11,000. The committee recommended that, subject to the terms of the contract being approved by the clerk, the land be purchased for the sum of £11,000, and that application be made to the Local Government Board for their sanction to borrow the said sum for that purpose.
The Case For
Councillor Coley moved the adoption of the recommendation, in the absence of the chairman of the committee. He opened by expressing the hope that the Council would sympathise with the proposal. All were agreed, he thought, as to the desirability of the provision of open spaces for the recreation of the inhabitants. It was a principle that had been adopted by all well governed districts. They already had seven such grounds, some of them small in extent, but he hoped the Council had not ended with them, but that others would be provided as the necessity arose. The seven grounds to which he referred were outside Kings Heath and Moseley, which places, it was common knowledge, had no public recreation ground. The piece of land they were asked to purchase was, he admitted, a big one, but it had to serve a big area. It was in near proximity to Ten Acres and Stirchley, and therefore would to some extent serve those localities as well as Kings Heath. The land had been valued as worth £1,000 per acre, and that was the sum which was asked for it when it was first offered. There were some present, he thought, who could tell them that £1,000 per acre was a reasonable price, seeing that it was ripe for building purposes. It had a frontage of some 500 yards to Avenue and Vicarage Roads. If that frontage were built upon to a depth of sixty yards the ground rents capitalized would reach a sum equal to that which was being asked for the whole fifteen acres. Although companies had, it was said, no souls to be saved nor bodies to be kicked, the company which owned the land had offered to let the Council have it for £4,000 less than the sum originally asked for it. In other words they were practically giving £4,000 towards the purchase of the park. As to the suitability of its position for the purpose there could be no doubt. It is on the fringe of a thickly populated part of Kings Heath, and the land facing it in Vicarage Road was, he believed, to be immediately developed. That land, he was informed, could not be bought under 5s. a yard, which represented just over £1,000 per acre. Moreover it as barren, so far as trees were concerned, whereas the land which it was proposed to purchase was well timbered. It had a good hedge fence to both frontages, and behind this was a belt of well grown timber. On the grounds were several large beds of matured rhododendron bushes and many well grown trees. The land is level, and the turf in such condition that very little money would have to be spent in relaying any part of it. Further, there was in the estate a beautifully situated and very ornamental lake, which was an important feature in a park. The members of the committee were very much struck with the beauty of the pool and its surroundings. In addition there was a lodge at the entrance, which could be used as a park keeper’s house, and there was a house which it had been suggested might be used as a museum. Connected with the house was considerable stable accommodation, which might be used for the purposes of Council work. The Selly Oak district had baths and libraries and recreation grounds; Moseley and Kings Heath had a fire station between them. He was going to ask the Council to say that a fire station did not represent all the public property which Moseley and Kings Heath should have in their midst. As to cost, the money could be borrowed, he believed, for a period of sixty years, which meant that the annual demand would be £486. 4s. 5d., or equal to a rate of a little over a third of a penny in the pound. That was a point which ought to weigh considerably with the Council, because it meant practically no increase in the rates; and the park would be an immense addition to the acquisitions of the district. Not only Kings Heath and Moseley but Selly Oak and Stirchley would be able to participate in the enjoyment. As regarded natural beauties it was the unique spot of the whole district. There was no other spot in Kings Heath were a park with such attractions could be provided. If a piece of bare land of any size were bought it would cost £1,500 to £2,000 to convert it into anything like a park, while it would be fifty or sixty years before the trees were as well grown as those in the proposed park. He did not apologise for bringing the matter forward: it was well known to the Council that a park for Kings Heath and Moseley had been in contemplation for two or three years. The present negotiations had spread over a considerable period. A sub-committee of the Baths and Parks Committee had met the owners from time to time, and everything that could be done in order to get the price reduced had been done. The price at which it was offered was, he ventured to say, a reasonable one, and one which more than one person in existence would be prepared to give for the land for building purposes. It meant an open space where there were no other public open spaces to-day. He believed it would mean a large development in the building operations of the district and a very large increase in the receipts from the tramway service, as a great number of people would no doubt visit the park during the summer months. He was sorry that Councillor Shann was not present to move the adoption of the recommendation, but he was entitled to state that he was fully in accord with the proposal and had he been present would have voted for it.Councillor Bishop seconded the proposition. He described the land as “a beautiful spot”, and said he had been wishing for a park for Kings Heath ever since he had been on the Council.
The Case Against
Councillor Hayes led the opposition to the proposal. He wished, he said, that he could have supported it, as there was no more ardent advocate for open spaces than himself. The glories of Moseley had been vividly portrayed to them on previous occasions, and he boldly asserted that not a quarter, nor a fifth, of Moseley’s population would use the park if provided. It would be the people of Kings Heath who would use it, and the size of the park was out of all proportion to the population for which it was to be provided. They had heard of schools being placed in the fields, and of proposals to place public offices in the fields, but that was the worst step of all – it was proposed to put a park amongst the fields! They had fields all round, there was no congested area whatever; it was said that the land near by would soon be built upon, but there would be a good deal of open land left even then. The committee ought to have tried to find a site amongst the population. He would undertake to find plenty of sites more suitable and of far less pretensions. The Council was not merely to buy a park but was to acquire a mansion! What was that wanted for? Councillor Coley vaguely suggested that the Surveyor might find it useful. Fancy a team of horses coming out of the park on a summer’s day with the glory of Moseley arrayed in silk and shaded with parasols taking the air in the park! Clearly such a thing could not seriously be considered. When the public offices’ question was raised £15,000 was said to be an enormous sum to spend by the very gentlemen who to-day were pointing out what a small fractional part of a penny this £11,000 park would cost. The Council’s indebtedness amounted to £355,388, and now they were to buy a mansion, a pool, and a beautifully decorated garden to please the high tastes and tone of Moseley and Kings Heath. With a park they wanted the masses; it was not those who lived in the high class houses at Moseley who would patronize it. Those people had the Birmingham Park, for which the Council was paying for a new entrance. Where were the masses at Kings Heath? “£11,000 for one portion of the district when the money spent on the whole of the parks of the district was £2,500! You do not ask for much gentlemen”. It was said that other parts of the district had libraries and baths and recreation grounds. They had only playgrounds – mere bottles – compared with the place Kings Heath wanted. The proposal touched the pockets of the working men and the shopkeepers, and it touched them very hard. They had a struggle now to make ends meet. With £355,000 of borrowed money on the books he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Councillor Lane) would oppose it tooth and nail. In his fiery enthusiasm for economy he felt sure that Councillor Lane would have the hardihood to go even against his constituents. (Laughter.) He (the speaker) wished Kings Heath to have a park, but not one out of all proportion to its needs, and therefore he moved, as an amendment, that the proposal be referred to the committee in order that they might find a more suitable and less expensive site.Councillor Kelly seconded the amendment. He was not against Kings Heath having a park, but thought the committee ought to see if they could not propound a more modest scheme.
Councillor Lane supported the proposal. He hoped the Council would know what the total expense would be if they acquired the land, as in connection with the parks in other parts of the district many items of expenditure had cropped up after they had been acquired. He also asked if it was necessary to have the whole 15 acres, or if they could not get some of the money back by utilizing part of the land for a building scheme. Again, if by spending a reasonable sum of money the house could be turned into public offices he would welcome the scheme open handed. (Hear, hear.)
Councillor Mason, in supporting, said that if the committee had searched the whole kingdom through they could not have found a more charming place: it was an ideal spot for the purpose. In the laying out there would be very little expense. Mr. Hayes said they were buying a mansion: as a matter of fact they were begging one. He also said they were touching the poor man’s pocket; in reality they were touching the poor man’s health. (Hear, hear.) The inhabitants of the surrounding districts would derive incalculable benefit from it. Some part of the place could be profitably utilized. There were magnificent green houses, which might be used as a centre for producing bedding out stuff say for the whole of the cemeteries and parks of the district. A temporary school was needed for Kings Heath: there were rooms in the house which would make ideal class rooms. Instead of being, as Mr. Hayes asserted, out in the fields, it was in the midst of a population of nearly 13,000 people, and in a very short time this population would be increased to 20,000.
Councillor Bradbury, in supporting the recommendation, remarked that Mr. Hayes waxed sarcastic at the expense of Moseley, apparently forgetting that there was a large number of poor people at Kings Heath who would make daily use of such a park. The shopkeeper would benefit by that use. He did not know what Councillor Hayes would call the centre of the population if he called the site of the park its outskirts, but at any rate any other suitable piece of land could not be obtained which was not a good deal more on the outskirts.
“Pious Humbug”
Councillor Whittaker, in supporting, asked for an assurance that a good piece of the land would be reserved for the children to romp about in. There was a tendency to make such a park “very select”. He objected also to it being represented that the sellers were contributing £4,000 towards the cost of purchase. This he regarded as a piece of pious humbug. He would not be prepared to accept the statement at any future time that the company gave £4,000 towards the cost of a park for Kings Heath. Eleven thousand pounds was the utmost value of the land. At the same time he supported the recommendation, feeling sure that if they did not acquire that piece of land they would have to go farther afield.Councillor Harbun opposed the recommendation. In addition to the initial outlay there was the cost of fencing and laying out - (A voice: It is all done) – the upkeep of the park, and the provision of a park-keeper. All things considered he thought the park would cost the district a penny rate, and that was a very serious consideration.
Councillor Parton supported the resolution. He did not think the committee could have selected a more suitable site.
Councillor Bednall also supported the resolution. If members would remember that they legislated for the whole district and not for one particular portion their work would be much easier, and would occasion much less friction. He sympathized with Councillor Whittaker’s objection with regard to the £4,000. In buying an article the seller did not, when it was objected that the price was too high, say he would provide half the purchase money. He did not think that was the right thing at all. The purchase price of the park was £11,000, and they were paying the value for what they got. To his mind there was no gift of £4,000 about it. He sympathized with what was being done to obtain open spaces, and hoped the day would come when authorities would be compelled, as a matter of duty, to provide them. If they missed that opportunity of getting a park the possibility was that they would lose a very valuable site. He believed the land and the locality were all that had been said of them, and felt certain that the park would soon be surrounded by houses. Unless they secured land now they would soon be in the position they were in at Bournbrook, where all the land was covered with bricks and mortar.
Councillor Fryer, in supporting, said he did so in the first instance because no other suitable land was obtainable, and the committee searched exhaustively. If they did not take the offer he confessed he was very doubtful if they would be able to make adequate provision for that part of the district. The question of the nearness of the land to the population had been raised; in many parts of the district the people were living at from 120 to 150 to the acre, and a good many of them were not far from that piece of land. He did not regard it entirely as a provision for Kings Heath, but as part of the equipment of the whole district. If it had been possible to bring forward any scheme less expensive, less elaborate, that scheme would have had his consistent and steady support. It was only because he regarded the scheme submitted as being practically all that was open in that part of the district that he was supporting it. He thought those who had raised the question of the £4,000 had taken a very reasonable attitude. He thought £11,000 a fair value for the land.
Councillor Shephard opposed the recommendation. The proposal he declared to be contrary to all the principles. Expensive parks such as that were absolutely ornamental white elephants. They did not meet the needs of the district at all. The people they got into such parks had for the most part plenty of open ground of their own. For £11,000 they could provide three good open spaces in which the children could romp about. They did not want places where the moment one got inside they were told to “keep off the grass”, and a little further up were told not “to touch the flowers”, which cost £5 or £6 a week to keep in repair, and a man to keep the children outside. (Laughter.)
Councillor Farrell thought that on a matter of such importance the whole of the members ought to have an opportunity of seeing the land before voting upon its purchase. He could not vote in the dark.
Councillor Quinney said he had always advocated open spaces, and the Council was particularly pledged to obtain a park for Kings Heath, whose members had always helped to obtain open spaces for other parts of the district. But if Councillor Hayes knew, as he said he did, of land that could be bought for half the price, he was going to vote for the amendment. Even if Councillor Hayes had not thrown out that suggestion, however, he could not have voted for the outlay of £11,000; he thought the sum altogether disproportionate to the needs of the case. If no other land could be obtained he did not see why they should not forego the purchase of the whole of the frontage, and let the vendors make a good price of it for building purposes. That would probably reduce the purchase price by at least 25 per cent.
Councillor Grant supported the resolution. It was a large sum to spend, and would hit the ratepayers very hard, but the spot was a unique one, and one that the Council should not lose. It would take 60 to 70 years for an estate planted now to reach the state of this one, even if it ever did so. He disagreed with the idea of taking off the frontage for building purposes, that would spoil the beautiful belt of trees. There were six or seven acres perfectly adaptable for cricket and for the use of the children, as Mr. Whittaker wanted. Moseley and Kings Heath had always supported Selly Oak and Stirchley when the latter wanted anything, and there was a tacit understanding that the representatives of these districts should support Kings Heath when it asked for a park. He considered it his duty to support the proposal. The park would serve not only Kings Heath, but the top end of Stirchley and Dogpool as well.
Gold by the Cart Load
The Chairman said that, like Councillor Bednall, he regretted the parochial spirit that had entered into the discussion, but taking the view that Councillor Hayes had taken he was quite sure that if Mr. Hayes had been on the Council as long as he (the speaker) had, and knew the large amount of money that had been spent on the various parts of the district, he would not have made the remarks he had. If Mr. Hayes wanted any facts to convince his constituents that Selly Oak had been fairly treated in the past he had only to apply to the accountant. He would find that for educational purposes the Council had spent upon it £33,805; for sewerage £2,135; for the High Street bridge, £500; for baths £11,500; for the widening and rebuilding of the bridges of Raddle Barn Lane, £4,100; for general improvements, £5,268; and for the “Dingle” property, £2,600; while shortly £1,500 was to be spent on the widening of the bridge at Dogpool, an improvement which would serve the district around as well as the immediate locality. Altogether he could inform Councillor Hayes that something like £59,000 had been spent upon Selly Oak. During the same period Stirchley had had £20,655, Moseley £7,197, and Kings Heath £5,906. Therefore if they were to go into the parochial aspect of the question, Selly Oak could not complain, seeing that it had at least four times as much as Moseley and Kings Heath. The park was for Moseley and Kings Heath – they must be reckoned as one in that matter – and Moseley and Kings Heath represented one third of the population, and considerably over one third of the rate producing power of the district. When they found the money – when they brought it to the Council coffers in cartloads, so to speak – (laughter) – they were surprised, they were disappointed that objection should be raised to such a request as they now made. Councillor Hayes’s suggestion that there was another site was, the speaker feared, but the trail of the red herring. For the past two years the committee had done all it possibly could to find land at Kings Heath – there was no suitable land anywhere available that was nearer to the population. He challenged Councillor Hayes to find any. The one put forward was the only one available and suitable; it was worth the money; he asked the Council to generously vote for it for the purpose.
Objections Answered
Councillor Coley then replied to points raised during the debate. He pointed out that while Councillor Shephard objected to the purchase of the land because of the size he advocated the purchase of 12 acres of land at Kings Norton for a similar purpose some twelve or eighteen months ago. Mr. Whittaker described the offer of the company to contribute £4,000 towards the purchase price as “a piece of pious humbug”; that was a phrase that he (the speaker) certainly did not appreciate. The price originally asked was £15,000, and they offered to take off £3,000 as a gift towards the purchase money. He repeated what he had said at the beginning of the debate, that the land had been valued to be worth £1,000 per acre. The committee afterwards got the price down to £11,000; they had a big struggle to get that £1,000 knocked off. He did not go to the company and ask what they would sell for; the price he first offered was £8,000. He had some hope of being able to get it at something about that sum, but after seeing the valuers’ reports and going into the matter with other agents, he knew perfectly well that the land was cheap at £11,000. Assuming an extra rate of even a penny had to be levied, Moseley and Kings Heath would have to find one third of it. Mr. Harbun opposed it, but in committee he was in favour of purchasing it if it could be got for £10,000, so that there was but £1,000 between his approval and his objection to the scheme. (Laughter.) He replied to his further objection as to the cost of laying out the park, and at the same time also answered Councillor Lane by saying that that was only a small item. He was absolutely with Councillor Whittaker in his advocacy of the preservation of an open space for the children. In further reply to Councillor Hayes, it would be a simple matter to run a cart road from Vicarage Road to the stables, so that they could be used without interfering with anybody’s susceptibilities. In a park of such a size a refreshment house would be needed, and it would be quite easy to let off some of the rooms of the house for that purpose. As for using the house for public offices, it would cost as much to convert it for the purpose as it would to build offices elsewhere. As to being able to provide another site, he asserted that Mr. Hayes did not know Kings Heath. There was no other land of any size that could be purchased that was nearer to the population. It was not, as Mr. Hayes seemed to think, situated away from the population. The land around was all mapped out for building purposes, and in two or three years’ time the park would be surrounded by a dense population. As to building upon part of the land, in the first place he supposed they had no power, but if they had to do so would be to destroy one of the main features of the land, which was the fine row of trees along the whole of the two frontages. Finally, he asserted that they would get nothing better if they searched Kings Heath all over.
The Vote
The vote was then taken, the division being as follows:-For the amendment: Messrs. Callwood, Farrell, Harbun, Hayes, Kelley, Payne, Quinney, Shephard and Wilson.
Against the amendment: Messrs. Bednall, Bishop, Bradbury, Brown, Bryan, Cocks, Coley, Fryer, Grant, Lane, Mason, Parton and Whittaker.
For the committee’s recommendation: Messrs. Bednall, Bishop, Bradbury, Brown, Bryan, Cocks, Coley, Fryer, Grant, Lane, Mason, Parton, Payne and Whittaker.
Against the recommendation: Messrs. Callwood, Farrell, Harbun, Hayes, Kelley, Quinney, Shephard and Wilson.
Neutral: Dr. Lilley and Mr. Moffatt. Fourteen votes for, 8 against, 2 neutral. The alteration in the voting was occasioned by Mr. Payne, upon the amendment being defeated, deciding to vote for the recommendation. “Having been defeated and it being inevitable that the proposal should be carried, I think it only right that we should cooperate in seeing it through”, said Mr. Payne to our representative.
-------------------------------
Opposition from Selly Oak
At a meeting of the Selly Oak and Bournbrook Tradesmen’s and Ratepayers’ Association, on Thursday evening, at Selly Oak Institute, Mr. W.A. Roberts presiding, Councillor A.C. Hayes, who was present, expressed his views on the proposal to purchase the park, and a strong opinion amongst those present against it, on the ground of the extravagance, was disclosed. Mr. I. Usherwood moved and Mr. Roberts seconded that a special general meeting of the association, to discuss the question, be called for Wednesday evening next, at the Institute, at 8.15 p.m. This was carried. Mr. H.W. Stephens gave notice that at that meeting he would move that the association record its protest against the proposal, and petition the Local Government Board for an enquiry to be held prior to sanctioning the proposed loan.
11th March 1908 – Minute of KN&N UDC, Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee
Kings Heath Park
The Clerk read a letter from the Secretary to the Education Committee stating that the Buildings, Sites and General Purposes Sub-Committee had had under consideration the question of providing some temporary school accommodation pending the provision of a permanent school in the neighbourhood of Grove Road, King’s Heath, and a suggestion had been made that the possibility of some portion of King’s Heath House might be rented from the Council for use as a temporary school for infant scholars. The Secretary was directed to ask if the Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee would appoint three or four members of that Committee to confer with representatives appointed by the above named Sub-Committee of the Education Committee respecting that suggestion. The members appointed by the Buildings, Sites and General Purposes Sub-Committee were Councillors Shephard, Bednall, Bishop and Whittaker.
Resolved:- That a Sub-Committee consisting of Councillors Shann, Coley, Fryer and Harbun be appointed to confer with the representatives of the Buildings, Sites and General Purposes Sub-Committee of the Education Committee in regard to this matter and that the Clerk be instructed to make arrangements for the Joint Sub-Committee to meet at King’s Heath House on Wednesday next the 18th inst. at 10 a.m.
12th March 1908 – Minute of KN&N UDC
Kings Heath Park
The Clerk read a letter from the Selly Oak and Bournbrook Traders’ and Ratepayers’ Association, enclosing a copy of a resolution passed at a meeting of that Association protesting against the proposed expenditure of £11,000 in the purchase of a park at King’s Heath.
It was moved by Mr. Councillor Brown, seconded by Mr. Councillor Bryan, and
Resolved:-
135 That the letter be referred to the Baths, Parks, and Cemeteries Committee for consideration.
14th March 1908 – Birmingham News
Councillor Hayes ............ made the statement that, although he had his predilection, he was so anxious to see the public offices provided, that he would, if necessary, be prepared to vote for their erection upon part of the land to be acquired at Kings Heath as a park.
.............................. In the course of his remarks he (Ed. note: - i.e. Councillor Coley) twitted Councillor Hayes with inconsistency in opposing the acquisition of a park last week on the grounds of economy and advocating a week later a scheme which would cost a much larger ultimate outlay.
Councillor Shann, in supporting the resolution (Ed. note: - about the new offices), said he did not consider Councillor’s Hayes’s attitude today at all inconsistent with his attitude last week, because parks and public offices were in entirely different categories. There was a sense in which expenditure upon public offices could be looked upon as reproductive in quite another way in which they could when speaking about a park, The speaker remarked, in passing, that he was personally in favour of the expenditure upon Kings Heath park. He was in favour of going on with the office question, and settling it. .............................
Owing to the great length at which we reported the discussion at the Council meeting last week upon the Kings Heath park proposal, reference to a number of other matters dealt with had to be curtailed or omitted altogether. Amongst these was ...........................
The proposal of the Kings Norton and Northfield Urban District Council to purchase 15 acres of land at Kings Heath at a cost of £11,000 to provide a park for that locality, was discussed on Wednesday night at a specially summoned meeting of the members of the Selly Oak and Bournbrook Traders’ and Ratepayers’ Association. The printed notice convening the meeting informed the meeting that Mr. H.W. Stephens had given notice of his intention to move:-
That this meeting of the Selly Oak and Bournbrook Traders’ and Ratepayers’ Association hereby records its protest against the proposed expenditure of eleven thousand pounds on the purchase of land and mansion situate at Kings Heath, and hereby petition the Local Government Board for an enquiry to be held prior to sanctioning the proposed loan”.
The president (Mr. Roberts) presided, and was supported by the joint hon. secretaries (Dr. W.J. Garbutt and Mr. A.E. Looker), Councillors A.C. Hayes, C.H. Harbun, and Frank Wilson were also amongst the attendance, which numbered 27.
Dr. Garbutt read a letter of apology from Councillor Bednall, in which the writer amplified the views upon the subject to which he gave expression at the meeting of the Council last week.
Eight or nine members took part in the debate, and all were careful to make it clear that they did not oppose the provision of an open space for Kings Heath. Their main ground of objection was to spending £11,000 in providing one. One or two speakers, however, advanced the secondary objection to the acquirement of large areas, holding that numerous small ones were more desirable than a few large ones.
Mr. Stephens, moving the resolution standing in his name on the notice paper and reproduced above, asserted that the size of the land was out of all proportion to the needs of the locality it was to serve, either at present or for twenty years to come. Apart from that the time was not opportune for the expenditure of large sums of money in view of the indebtedness of the Council, and the expenditure that was obligatory on them in several directions. A sum of £250 had been spent by the Council to provide an extra carriageway entrance to Cannon Hill Park for the benefit of Moseley, so that they would not need a new park. Apart from that they were too far from it to make use of it. The money was to be borrowed for sixty years so that instead of the park costing £11,000 it would cost between £26,000 and £28,000.
Mr. A.E. Smith seconded.
Councillor Harbun supported, expressing a preference for a number of open spaces and playgrounds to a great park preserved chiefly for decorative effectiveness. At the meeting of the Council Councillor Coley twitted Mr. Harbun with supporting the project in committee if the land could be got for £10,000. Referring to this Mr. Harbun said Councillor Coley had not fairly represented the facts. When the scheme was first brought forward by Councillor Coley the price mentioned was £15,000, and Mr. Harbun said he replied, “If you would get them to offer the land at £7,500 there would be some reason in it”. Councillor Coley said, “What would you say at £10,000?” I said: “If they will mention £10,000 we might begin to talk to them.” Mr. Harbun added: “But I did not say I was going to vote for £10,000.” The speaker, however, said he was afraid the scheme had now gone too far to upset.
Councillor Wilson explained that he voted against the scheme on the ground of expense alone. Having been defeated he did not consider it part of his duty to proceed further, and he questioned the wisdom of such a meeting as that. His view was that it would do no good, and that it would create unnecessary friction.
Mr. Holmes said that Mr. Harbun and Mr. Coley would no doubt thrash out their difference themselves, and when those present read in the “News” what each had said, they would be able to form their own opinion over the point. He was glad to see the opposition to the proposal. As for Moseley and Kings Heath, if they were not satisfied, let them go to Birmingham.
Mr. Hayes said the expenditure proposed was beyond all conception of what the requirements of the locality were. They must not too hastily assume that the people of Moseley approve the matter; from enquiries he had made there was a good deal of murmuring against it there. Mr. Brown had quoted some figures to show what was spent at Selly Oak, but most of the money was spent in meeting statutory obligations. He was prepared to consider the idea, if the land was to be brought, of waiving his proposal of a site for public offices at Ten Acres, and using part of it as a site for public offices. By so doing a certain sum would be saved.
The resolution was carried unanimously.
It was decided to draft a petition in proper form for forwarding to the Local Government Board, and a committee was appointed to make enquiries as to other land at Kings Heath available for a recreation ground.
Prior to the commencement of the discussion, a resolution of sympathy with the relatives of the Hamstead Colliery victims was passed, and a collection amounting to £1 5s. 5d. was made on behalf of the “Daily Mail” Relief Fund.
We are indebted to Mr. A.E. Dawson, Etheldene, Station Road, Kings Heath, for the photo.
Councillor Whittaker and Council Work Councillor E. Whittaker, Labour member for Kings Heath East Ward on the Kings Norton and Northfield Urban District Council, addressed a meeting at Kings Heath Council Schools, on Wednesday evening, on the subject of “A year’s work on the Council”. .................
Councillor Whittaker, in the course of an address which lasted upwards of an hour, ..............
......... spoke of the grounds proposed to be purchased for Kings Heath Park as an ideal place, and he had been struck by the beauty of the surroundings and the means afforded for the health of the community. He considered the price heavy, pointing out that it would cost £500 a year for the next sixty years, and together with the upkeep would mean at least a halfpenny rate continuously for that period. He hoped the ratepayers would some day awake to the fact that there were other ways of getting these things than by going to the enormous expense involved.
Dear Sir, - May I point out to your readers who may take an interest in local Council matters the wrong inference that may be drawn from the remarks of Mr. Coley replying to the debate on the Kings Heath park and my objection. I should like to state that my position in respect to the land at Kings Norton was, that we had the opportunity to purchase twelve acres for the sum of £1,100, a gift compared with the Kings Heath Park at fifteen acres for £11,000
Your readers can thus judge of my support to the purchase of twelve acres of land at Kings Norton.
E. Shephard,
Kings Norton
Sir, - There is no greater blessing to a ratepayer than the possibility of seeing at least “something” for the increasing expenditure of rates and to secure such delightful grounds as those known as the Priory, Vicarage Road, naturally gives pleasure to a goodly number of people in the immediate vicinity, and the older inhabitants are glad to know the jerry builder will not be permitted to strip the land.
But what arises in the mind of the ratepayers generally – who have taken the trouble to think what “open spaces” mean – causes them to agree with Mr. Councillor Hayes, who so plainly stated “the Priory Grounds were not in a congested area”.
Then again, have the Councillors forgotten Mr. Cadbury’s recent gift of Uffculme? This is surely an open space.
Open spaces would be more beneficial to the masses if they were in one acre plots in fifteen places (rather than fifteen acres stumped in one area, where bands will have to be paid for and bandstands erected in order to get the inhabitants to journey so far), and then the streets would be relieved of children and their parents relieved of anxiety.
Mr. Councillor Mason’s remarks about begging a mansion for £11,000 make one wonder whether he really realises what a “mansion” is. Also whether the Vicarage Road is the most desirable spot for a mansion; and, lastly, is the present state of the property market in such a buoyant condition to cause him to display such unbounded enthusiasm on the capture at such a price?
The valuations I have received from other property owners confirm my views, namely, that councillors should refrain from laying stress on “the difficult matter they have got on hand”, also they should not single out one plot of ground and lead the vendors to think “there is no other plot available”.
The prediction of “Councillor” in the “Birmingham News” last June has come true.
Allow me again to say it is a beautiful area of ground, and no one would regret more than myself that such charming grounds should be destroyed, but the present owners can prevent that taking place.
Lastly, considering the whole of the ratepayers, it is not fair play to favour one area at the everlasting expense of other areas. – Yours faithfully,
Francis Knight
Lavall House, Moseley, 11th March, 1908.
1st March 1908 – Birmingham New
Bad News
From what I hear the tenure by Kings Heath cricket Club of their old ground in Vicarage Road is not likely to be more than for this season. It was stated that arrangements had been arrived at whereby they would be able to enjoy possession for some seasons, but from further statements made it would seem that by 1909 the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will commence their scheme for cutting the land up for building purposes. The club will have to put in an early application for a pitch in the new park.
................. There were two “burning questions” at present, the one being the Kings Heath Park and the other, the provision of public offices. In regard to the former he (Dr. Lilley), remained neutral when the vote was taken, because he was unwilling to give a silent vote, and did not care to detain the Council with his views at the end of a very long sitting. He believed in the open spaces, and that Kings Heath was entitled to have a park, but he considered that £11,000 was too much to spend for the purpose. He preferred several small grounds to a large, pretentious park, which was more likely to be the rendezvous of the people of Birmingham than a ground used by the people of the district.
.................... Touching Kings Heath park, the speaker (Councillor Coley) admitted that the price was a large one, but said it was worth the money for building purposes, and they could not obtain other suitable land. It would in the near future be, as the result of building developments, in the centre of a congested district. He hoped it would not be thought that the Council’s policy was to wait until an area was congested before an open space was acquired. (Hear, hear.) The provision of parks was an aid to the public health of the district.
................ Mr. Gibbs then informed the meeting that the executive had also recommended the association to support Mr. A.E. Dawson for the vacancy in Kings Heath East ward.
Mr Dawson, who was present, gave a short statement with regard to his views. He supported the proposal for securing the grounds of Kings Heath House for a park. .............................
28th March 1908 – Birmingham News
Ladies and Gentlemen, -
Having been approached by a large number of Electors of this ward to allow myself to be Nominated as a Candidate at the forthcoming Election, I beg to place myself at your disposal.
.................. To give a general idea of my views. I am certainly in favour of the park scheme; ..................
Yours faithfully,
Albert Edward Dawson
“Etheldene”
Kings Heath
March 19, 1908
........ The Tramways, the Offices’ question, and the Kings Heath Park will all need the greatest attention, and if you think well to again return me, I promise that nothing on my part shall be wanting to secure the best possible results, the first consideration being the best interests of the ratepayers.
Yours obediently,
J.C. Lane
Ladies and Gentlemen, -
The Electors having expressed their desire for a contest in the Ward in order to show their disapproval of the extravagant schemes which the ratepayers have not asked for – I take this opportunity of assuring you that I agree with Councillor Dr. Lilley who said “£11,000 was too much to spend on one park”.
We require several Open Spaces or Play Grounds for children in congested areas. ................
I am,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Your obedient servant
Francis Knight
Lavell House
Moseley
25th March, 1908
1st April 1908 – Minute of KN&N UDC, Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee
14th March 1908 – Birmingham News
Kings Norton and Northfield Council
The Offices Question
(This is a long report with occasional reference to the Park provision:)
Public Offices: Another Deferment
Councillor Hayes ............ made the statement that, although he had his predilection, he was so anxious to see the public offices provided, that he would, if necessary, be prepared to vote for their erection upon part of the land to be acquired at Kings Heath as a park.
.............................. In the course of his remarks he (Ed. note: - i.e. Councillor Coley) twitted Councillor Hayes with inconsistency in opposing the acquisition of a park last week on the grounds of economy and advocating a week later a scheme which would cost a much larger ultimate outlay.
Councillor Shann, in supporting the resolution (Ed. note: - about the new offices), said he did not consider Councillor’s Hayes’s attitude today at all inconsistent with his attitude last week, because parks and public offices were in entirely different categories. There was a sense in which expenditure upon public offices could be looked upon as reproductive in quite another way in which they could when speaking about a park, The speaker remarked, in passing, that he was personally in favour of the expenditure upon Kings Heath park. He was in favour of going on with the office question, and settling it. .............................
Owing to the great length at which we reported the discussion at the Council meeting last week upon the Kings Heath park proposal, reference to a number of other matters dealt with had to be curtailed or omitted altogether. Amongst these was ...........................
--------------------------------------
The Proposed Park for Kings Heath
The Selly Oak Protest
(The article is accompanied by a photograph whose quality does not permit reproduction here)
The proposal of the Kings Norton and Northfield Urban District Council to purchase 15 acres of land at Kings Heath at a cost of £11,000 to provide a park for that locality, was discussed on Wednesday night at a specially summoned meeting of the members of the Selly Oak and Bournbrook Traders’ and Ratepayers’ Association. The printed notice convening the meeting informed the meeting that Mr. H.W. Stephens had given notice of his intention to move:-
That this meeting of the Selly Oak and Bournbrook Traders’ and Ratepayers’ Association hereby records its protest against the proposed expenditure of eleven thousand pounds on the purchase of land and mansion situate at Kings Heath, and hereby petition the Local Government Board for an enquiry to be held prior to sanctioning the proposed loan”.
The president (Mr. Roberts) presided, and was supported by the joint hon. secretaries (Dr. W.J. Garbutt and Mr. A.E. Looker), Councillors A.C. Hayes, C.H. Harbun, and Frank Wilson were also amongst the attendance, which numbered 27.
Dr. Garbutt read a letter of apology from Councillor Bednall, in which the writer amplified the views upon the subject to which he gave expression at the meeting of the Council last week.
Eight or nine members took part in the debate, and all were careful to make it clear that they did not oppose the provision of an open space for Kings Heath. Their main ground of objection was to spending £11,000 in providing one. One or two speakers, however, advanced the secondary objection to the acquirement of large areas, holding that numerous small ones were more desirable than a few large ones.
Mr. Stephens, moving the resolution standing in his name on the notice paper and reproduced above, asserted that the size of the land was out of all proportion to the needs of the locality it was to serve, either at present or for twenty years to come. Apart from that the time was not opportune for the expenditure of large sums of money in view of the indebtedness of the Council, and the expenditure that was obligatory on them in several directions. A sum of £250 had been spent by the Council to provide an extra carriageway entrance to Cannon Hill Park for the benefit of Moseley, so that they would not need a new park. Apart from that they were too far from it to make use of it. The money was to be borrowed for sixty years so that instead of the park costing £11,000 it would cost between £26,000 and £28,000.
Mr. A.E. Smith seconded.
Councillor Harbun supported, expressing a preference for a number of open spaces and playgrounds to a great park preserved chiefly for decorative effectiveness. At the meeting of the Council Councillor Coley twitted Mr. Harbun with supporting the project in committee if the land could be got for £10,000. Referring to this Mr. Harbun said Councillor Coley had not fairly represented the facts. When the scheme was first brought forward by Councillor Coley the price mentioned was £15,000, and Mr. Harbun said he replied, “If you would get them to offer the land at £7,500 there would be some reason in it”. Councillor Coley said, “What would you say at £10,000?” I said: “If they will mention £10,000 we might begin to talk to them.” Mr. Harbun added: “But I did not say I was going to vote for £10,000.” The speaker, however, said he was afraid the scheme had now gone too far to upset.
Councillor Wilson explained that he voted against the scheme on the ground of expense alone. Having been defeated he did not consider it part of his duty to proceed further, and he questioned the wisdom of such a meeting as that. His view was that it would do no good, and that it would create unnecessary friction.
Mr. Holmes said that Mr. Harbun and Mr. Coley would no doubt thrash out their difference themselves, and when those present read in the “News” what each had said, they would be able to form their own opinion over the point. He was glad to see the opposition to the proposal. As for Moseley and Kings Heath, if they were not satisfied, let them go to Birmingham.
Mr. Hayes said the expenditure proposed was beyond all conception of what the requirements of the locality were. They must not too hastily assume that the people of Moseley approve the matter; from enquiries he had made there was a good deal of murmuring against it there. Mr. Brown had quoted some figures to show what was spent at Selly Oak, but most of the money was spent in meeting statutory obligations. He was prepared to consider the idea, if the land was to be brought, of waiving his proposal of a site for public offices at Ten Acres, and using part of it as a site for public offices. By so doing a certain sum would be saved.
The resolution was carried unanimously.
It was decided to draft a petition in proper form for forwarding to the Local Government Board, and a committee was appointed to make enquiries as to other land at Kings Heath available for a recreation ground.
Prior to the commencement of the discussion, a resolution of sympathy with the relatives of the Hamstead Colliery victims was passed, and a collection amounting to £1 5s. 5d. was made on behalf of the “Daily Mail” Relief Fund.
-----------------------
Our process block is produced from a photograph which conveys a very good general idea of the character of the property which the Council propose to acquire.We are indebted to Mr. A.E. Dawson, Etheldene, Station Road, Kings Heath, for the photo.
----------------------------------
Kings Norton and Northfield Districts
Kings Heath and Moseley
Councillor Whittaker and Council Work Councillor E. Whittaker, Labour member for Kings Heath East Ward on the Kings Norton and Northfield Urban District Council, addressed a meeting at Kings Heath Council Schools, on Wednesday evening, on the subject of “A year’s work on the Council”. .................
Councillor Whittaker, in the course of an address which lasted upwards of an hour, ..............
......... spoke of the grounds proposed to be purchased for Kings Heath Park as an ideal place, and he had been struck by the beauty of the surroundings and the means afforded for the health of the community. He considered the price heavy, pointing out that it would cost £500 a year for the next sixty years, and together with the upkeep would mean at least a halfpenny rate continuously for that period. He hoped the ratepayers would some day awake to the fact that there were other ways of getting these things than by going to the enormous expense involved.
--------------------------------
Letters to the Editor
The Public Park for Kings Heath
To the Editor
Dear Sir, - May I point out to your readers who may take an interest in local Council matters the wrong inference that may be drawn from the remarks of Mr. Coley replying to the debate on the Kings Heath park and my objection. I should like to state that my position in respect to the land at Kings Norton was, that we had the opportunity to purchase twelve acres for the sum of £1,100, a gift compared with the Kings Heath Park at fifteen acres for £11,000
Your readers can thus judge of my support to the purchase of twelve acres of land at Kings Norton.
E. Shephard,
Kings Norton
--------------------------
To the Editor
Sir, - There is no greater blessing to a ratepayer than the possibility of seeing at least “something” for the increasing expenditure of rates and to secure such delightful grounds as those known as the Priory, Vicarage Road, naturally gives pleasure to a goodly number of people in the immediate vicinity, and the older inhabitants are glad to know the jerry builder will not be permitted to strip the land.
But what arises in the mind of the ratepayers generally – who have taken the trouble to think what “open spaces” mean – causes them to agree with Mr. Councillor Hayes, who so plainly stated “the Priory Grounds were not in a congested area”.
Then again, have the Councillors forgotten Mr. Cadbury’s recent gift of Uffculme? This is surely an open space.
Open spaces would be more beneficial to the masses if they were in one acre plots in fifteen places (rather than fifteen acres stumped in one area, where bands will have to be paid for and bandstands erected in order to get the inhabitants to journey so far), and then the streets would be relieved of children and their parents relieved of anxiety.
Mr. Councillor Mason’s remarks about begging a mansion for £11,000 make one wonder whether he really realises what a “mansion” is. Also whether the Vicarage Road is the most desirable spot for a mansion; and, lastly, is the present state of the property market in such a buoyant condition to cause him to display such unbounded enthusiasm on the capture at such a price?
The valuations I have received from other property owners confirm my views, namely, that councillors should refrain from laying stress on “the difficult matter they have got on hand”, also they should not single out one plot of ground and lead the vendors to think “there is no other plot available”.
The prediction of “Councillor” in the “Birmingham News” last June has come true.
Allow me again to say it is a beautiful area of ground, and no one would regret more than myself that such charming grounds should be destroyed, but the present owners can prevent that taking place.
Lastly, considering the whole of the ratepayers, it is not fair play to favour one area at the everlasting expense of other areas. – Yours faithfully,
Francis Knight
Lavall House, Moseley, 11th March, 1908.
1st March 1908 – Birmingham New
Village Gossip
Bad News
From what I hear the tenure by Kings Heath cricket Club of their old ground in Vicarage Road is not likely to be more than for this season. It was stated that arrangements had been arrived at whereby they would be able to enjoy possession for some seasons, but from further statements made it would seem that by 1909 the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will commence their scheme for cutting the land up for building purposes. The club will have to put in an early application for a pitch in the new park.
--------------------------------
Kings Norton and Northfield District Council
Dr. Lilley Addresses his Constituents at Stirchley
(Relevant extracts from an otherwise very long report:)
................. There were two “burning questions” at present, the one being the Kings Heath Park and the other, the provision of public offices. In regard to the former he (Dr. Lilley), remained neutral when the vote was taken, because he was unwilling to give a silent vote, and did not care to detain the Council with his views at the end of a very long sitting. He believed in the open spaces, and that Kings Heath was entitled to have a park, but he considered that £11,000 was too much to spend for the purpose. He preferred several small grounds to a large, pretentious park, which was more likely to be the rendezvous of the people of Birmingham than a ground used by the people of the district.
.................... Touching Kings Heath park, the speaker (Councillor Coley) admitted that the price was a large one, but said it was worth the money for building purposes, and they could not obtain other suitable land. It would in the near future be, as the result of building developments, in the centre of a congested district. He hoped it would not be thought that the Council’s policy was to wait until an area was congested before an open space was acquired. (Hear, hear.) The provision of parks was an aid to the public health of the district.
----------------------------------
Kings Heath Ratepayers Association & the Elections
................ Mr. Gibbs then informed the meeting that the executive had also recommended the association to support Mr. A.E. Dawson for the vacancy in Kings Heath East ward.
Mr Dawson, who was present, gave a short statement with regard to his views. He supported the proposal for securing the grounds of Kings Heath House for a park. .............................
28th March 1908 – Birmingham News
Public Announcements
Kings Norton and Northfield Urban District Council
Kings Heath East Ward
Ladies and Gentlemen, -
Having been approached by a large number of Electors of this ward to allow myself to be Nominated as a Candidate at the forthcoming Election, I beg to place myself at your disposal.
.................. To give a general idea of my views. I am certainly in favour of the park scheme; ..................
Yours faithfully,
Albert Edward Dawson
“Etheldene”
Kings Heath
March 19, 1908
------------------------
Public Announcements
Kings Norton and Northfield Urban District Council
Moseley Moor Green Ward
........ The Tramways, the Offices’ question, and the Kings Heath Park will all need the greatest attention, and if you think well to again return me, I promise that nothing on my part shall be wanting to secure the best possible results, the first consideration being the best interests of the ratepayers.
Yours obediently,
J.C. Lane
------------------------
Public Announcements
Kings Norton and Northfield Urban District Council
Moseley Wake Green Ward
Ladies and Gentlemen, -
The Electors having expressed their desire for a contest in the Ward in order to show their disapproval of the extravagant schemes which the ratepayers have not asked for – I take this opportunity of assuring you that I agree with Councillor Dr. Lilley who said “£11,000 was too much to spend on one park”.
We require several Open Spaces or Play Grounds for children in congested areas. ................
I am,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Your obedient servant
Francis Knight
Lavell House
Moseley
25th March, 1908
1st April 1908 – Minute of KN&N UDC, Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee
Bandstands The Surveyor submitted estimates for supplying bandstands to the King’s Heath, Selly Oak, Cotteridge and Muntz Parks and after some discussion it was
Resolved:- That the Surveyor be instructed to obtain further estimates for submission to the next meeting of the Committee.
9th April 1908 - Minute of KN&N UDC, Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee, and also reported to the Council on that day, and approved - see
9th April 1908 – Minute of the KN&N UDC (resolutions 212 to 216)
Bandstands
The Surveyor submitted drawings of bandstands and the following estimates for supplying the same to the parks of the Council:-
The St Pancras Iron Works Co Ltd. London, £94:6:8 each
W. Macfarlane & Co. Glasgow £115 each
Hill & Smith, Brierley Hill, Birmingham, £160, £168, and £187 each.
It was moved and seconded that it be a recommendation to the Council that the estimates of W. Macfarlane & Co. of Glasgow for supplying bandstands to the Selly Oak, Cotteridge and King’s Heath Parks, in the sum of £115 each be accepted subject to their entering into a contract and bond (with approved sureties) for the due performance of the work and that the common seal of the Council be affixed to such contract and bond.
As an amendment it was moved and seconded that it be a recommendation to the Council that the estimate of the St Pancras Iron Work Company Ltd of London in the sum of £94:6:8 each be accepted.
Upon a vote being taken there appeared
For the amendment 3
Against the amendment 2
The Chairman thereupon declared the amendment carried and it was
Resolved to recommend:- That the estimate of the St Pancras Iron Work Company Ltd of London for supplying bandstands at Selly Oak, Cotteridge and King’s Heath Parks in the sum of £94:6:8 each be accepted subject to the Company entering into a Contract and Bond (with approved sureties), to be prepared by the Clerk, for the due performance of the work and that the common seal of the Council be affixed to such Contract and Bond.
It was also
Resolved to recommend:- That the concrete bases be constructed for the purpose of erecting thereon such bandstands at an estimated cost of £20 each and that the work be carried out departmentally.
Resolved also to recommend:- That concrete bases be constructed at the Muntz Park and Bournbrook recreation ground at an estimated cost of £20 each and that the work be carried out departmentally.
Resolved also to recommend:- That application be made to the Local Government Board for their sanction to the borrowing of the sum of £450 towards the cost of purchasing and fixing the above mentioned bandstands and of constructing the above mentioned concrete bases.
Resolved also:- That the question as to the positions in which such bandstands and concrete bases shall be fixed be left in the hands as regards Selly Oak Park, Muntz Park and Bournbrook Recreation Ground of the Chairman and Mr Councillor Harbun, as regards Cotteridge Park, of the Chairman and Mr Councillor Fryer and as regards King’s Heath Park, of the Chairman and Mr Councillor Brown.
Chairs Resolved that the question of providing chairs in the parks and recreation grounds be referred to a Sub-Committee consisting of Councillors Shann, Coley, Fryer, Harbun and Shephard.
11th April 1908 – Birmingham News
A meeting of local householders was held at Selly Oak Institute on Wednesday evening under the auspices of the Selly Oak and District Progressive Association to provide an opportunity for the members of the west ward of Selly Oak on the Kings Norton Council (all three of whom are Progressive nominees) to give an account of their work during the year.
..........................
Councillor Shann then addressed the meeting. .................. He enumerated the parks and recreation grounds that had been opened in the past two years ........................ Touching Kings Heath’s projected park, he defended the action of the Council, and expressed the view that the opposition offered to it locally was dictated by a rather narrow spirit. ..........................
Councillor Bednall then addressed the meeting. .................. In regard to Kings Heath Park, his views were identical with those of Councillor Shann.
7th May 1908 - Minute of KN&N UDC, Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee
11th April 1908 – Birmingham News
Progressive Work on Kings Norton Council
A meeting of local householders was held at Selly Oak Institute on Wednesday evening under the auspices of the Selly Oak and District Progressive Association to provide an opportunity for the members of the west ward of Selly Oak on the Kings Norton Council (all three of whom are Progressive nominees) to give an account of their work during the year.
..........................
Councillor Shann then addressed the meeting. .................. He enumerated the parks and recreation grounds that had been opened in the past two years ........................ Touching Kings Heath’s projected park, he defended the action of the Council, and expressed the view that the opposition offered to it locally was dictated by a rather narrow spirit. ..........................
Councillor Bednall then addressed the meeting. .................. In regard to Kings Heath Park, his views were identical with those of Councillor Shann.
7th May 1908 - Minute of KN&N UDC, Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee
The Clerk also presented the following letter he had received from the acting clerk to the Higher Education Committee.
“Education Offices,
King’s Norton,
Birmingham.
5th May 1908
Dear Sirs,
I am directed by the Higher Education Committee to state that they have under consideration a report of His Majesty’s Inspectors with respect to the Pupil Teachers’ Centre. In this report the Inspectors call particular attention to the fact that the Pupil Teachers have no playground or suitable playing field in which to take part in organised games. The Inspectors urge that steps should be taken to remedy this matter and the Higher Education Committee have therefore passed the following resolution:-
Resolved that:- The Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee of the Urban District Council be respectfully requested to grant permission for the students at the Pupil Teachers’ Centre to play games on a portion of the proposed King’s Heath Park on one afternoon and on Saturday morning in each week.
I should be glad to hear in due course as to the decision of the Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee with regard to this matter.
Yours faithfully,
J.F. Moore
Acting Clerk
E. Docker, Esq.
10 Newhall Street,
Birmingham.”
Resolved:- That the consideration of the matter be deferred until such time as the park is actually conveyed to the Council.
The Clerk also presented a letter dated March 19th, 1908 from Mr. James Sutton the Secretary to the E.M.S. and P.S.A. Social Club requesting the allocation to such club of a cricket pitch in the King’s Heath Park.
Resolved:- That the consideration of the matter be deferred.
The Clerk also presented applications he had received for the position of Superintendent of King’s Heath Park.
Resolved:- That the considerations of the applications be deferred.
Bandstands
The Clerk reported that the Contract and Bond with the St Pancras Iron Work Company Limited for supplying bandstands to the Selly Oak, Cotteridge and King’s Heath Parks had been executed by them. He also presented letters from the Company stating that if it was necessary to make a second journey from London to fix either of the bandstands after the other two had been fixed an estimated extra expenditure of £9:12:6 would thereby be incurred.
Resolved:- That if it becomes necessary for the representatives of the St Pancras Iron Work Company, Limited to make a second journey from London to fix either of the bandstands after the other two have been fixed, the sum of £9:12:6 be paid to the Company for the extra cost thereby incurred.
9th May 1908 – Birmingham News
A further recommendation of the sub-committee related to organised games in connection with the Pupil Teacher Centre at Kings Heath. The sub-committee were of opinion that arrangements should be made, if possible, for a portion of the Kings Heath Public Park to be available for the use of the students from the Pupil Teacher Centre on one afternoon and on Saturday morning in each week, and accordingly they recommended that the Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee of the Urban District Council be respectfully requested to grant the necessary permission.
13th May 1908 – Minute of KN&N UDC
9th May 1908 – Birmingham News
Kings Norton Educational Affairs
(One paragraph about the Park from an otherwise very long and otherwise unrelated report:)
A further recommendation of the sub-committee related to organised games in connection with the Pupil Teacher Centre at Kings Heath. The sub-committee were of opinion that arrangements should be made, if possible, for a portion of the Kings Heath Public Park to be available for the use of the students from the Pupil Teacher Centre on one afternoon and on Saturday morning in each week, and accordingly they recommended that the Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee of the Urban District Council be respectfully requested to grant the necessary permission.
13th May 1908 – Minute of KN&N UDC
Application from Mr. F. J. Gibbs for use of King’s Heath Park
The Chairman presented a letter from Mr. F.J. Gibbs, stating that, before the Council had decided to purchase the King’s Heath Park, the Priory Estate Company, Limited, had consented to a fete being held there on July 3rd and 4th, 1908, and requesting the Council to grant permission for such fete to be held in the event of the purchase being completed before that date.
It was moved by Councillor Brown, seconded by Mr. Councillor Mason, and
Resolved:- 238 That the Chairman be empowered to write to Mr. Gibbs informing him that if the park is in the possession of the Council on the date named they will raise no objection to the fete being held.
16th May 1908 – Birmingham News
Sir, - Allow me to remind the ratepayers of Kings Norton that there is still plenty of time at our disposal to form a committee and receive evidence to enable us to raise an objection against the purchasing of such an estate.
An inquiry will have to be held by an inspector of the Local Government Board, and such inquiry as to enable the ratepayers to express their approval or otherwise of such an outlay. Mr. Councillor Shann stated on Wednesday last, “that the provision contract had not yet been signed”. Such a contract will be, like the resolution, passed by the District Council, viz., of no effect, if the Local Government Board can be prevailed upon to disapprove of such outlay. The Councillors who voted against the resolution should now come to the assistance of their supporters before it is too late, and stop unnecessary expenditure. – Yours very truly,
Ratepayer
Moor Green Ward
Moseley, 14th May, 1908
I notice there are complaints in the press asking how the poor can be expected to visit Parks when music and other entertainments are not provided. This means a further outlay!
Councillor Whittaker asked the chairman of the (Baths, Parks and Cemeteries) committee (Councillor Shann) when the park at Kings Heath was likely to be opened for use.
Councillor Hayes: You haven’t got it yet.
Councillor Shann: I should think we ought to have it by July. The Local Government Board has not yet given its consent. The contract has not yet been provisionally signed, and we cannot ask for the enquiry until it is.
21st May 1908 - Minute of KN&N UDC, Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee (Special meeting)
16th May 1908 – Birmingham News
Letters to the Editor
Kings Heath Park
To the Editor
Sir, - Allow me to remind the ratepayers of Kings Norton that there is still plenty of time at our disposal to form a committee and receive evidence to enable us to raise an objection against the purchasing of such an estate.
An inquiry will have to be held by an inspector of the Local Government Board, and such inquiry as to enable the ratepayers to express their approval or otherwise of such an outlay. Mr. Councillor Shann stated on Wednesday last, “that the provision contract had not yet been signed”. Such a contract will be, like the resolution, passed by the District Council, viz., of no effect, if the Local Government Board can be prevailed upon to disapprove of such outlay. The Councillors who voted against the resolution should now come to the assistance of their supporters before it is too late, and stop unnecessary expenditure. – Yours very truly,
Ratepayer
Moor Green Ward
Moseley, 14th May, 1908
I notice there are complaints in the press asking how the poor can be expected to visit Parks when music and other entertainments are not provided. This means a further outlay!
--------------------------------
Kings Norton and Northfield District Council
Kings Heath Park
Councillor Whittaker asked the chairman of the (Baths, Parks and Cemeteries) committee (Councillor Shann) when the park at Kings Heath was likely to be opened for use.
Councillor Hayes: You haven’t got it yet.
Councillor Shann: I should think we ought to have it by July. The Local Government Board has not yet given its consent. The contract has not yet been provisionally signed, and we cannot ask for the enquiry until it is.
21st May 1908 - Minute of KN&N UDC, Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee (Special meeting)
Kings Heath Park
The Clerk reported that he had settled the terms of the Contract for the purchase of part of the Priory Estate, King’s Heath for the purposes of a public park with the exception of the clause relating to the payment of the Vendor’s Solicitors’ and Surveyor’s costs. He reported that Messrs. Foster & Co., Solicitors to the vendors required the sum of 50 guineas for their costs.
Resolved:- That this Committee are of opinion that they are not called upon to pay any costs in respect of Solicitor or Surveyor and decline to do so.
23rd May 1908 – Birmingham News
Sir, - At a meeting convened by the Selly Oak Traders’ and Ratepayers’ Association a resolution was unanimously passed opposing the Kings Norton Council’s scheme of purchasing an estate at Kings Heath for the purpose of a park. At the same meeting a committee was appointed to take up the matter and to appeal to the Local Government Board for a public enquiry to be held. If your correspondent signing himself “Ratepayer” would kindly communicate with Mr. A.E. Looker, Bournbrook, who is one of the secretaries of the association, I have no doubt that he would be glad to take any steps which would help to secure joint action being taken in opposition to the scheme being proposed. – Yours faithfully,
Thos. Harper
Bournbrook, May 21st, 1908
28th May 1908 - Minute of KN&N UDC, Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee (Special meeting)
23rd May 1908 – Birmingham News
Letters to the Editor
Kings Heath Park
To the Editor
Sir, - At a meeting convened by the Selly Oak Traders’ and Ratepayers’ Association a resolution was unanimously passed opposing the Kings Norton Council’s scheme of purchasing an estate at Kings Heath for the purpose of a park. At the same meeting a committee was appointed to take up the matter and to appeal to the Local Government Board for a public enquiry to be held. If your correspondent signing himself “Ratepayer” would kindly communicate with Mr. A.E. Looker, Bournbrook, who is one of the secretaries of the association, I have no doubt that he would be glad to take any steps which would help to secure joint action being taken in opposition to the scheme being proposed. – Yours faithfully,
Thos. Harper
Bournbrook, May 21st, 1908
28th May 1908 - Minute of KN&N UDC, Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee (Special meeting)
Kings Heath Park – Vendors’ Solicitors’ Costs
The Clerk submitted a letter from Messrs. Foster & Co., Solicitors to the Vendors of the proposed park at King’s Heath stating that they had seen the Chairman of their clients’ company and he instructed them to say that inasmuch as the Council were obtaining 2 roods and 6 perches more land than was bargained for he and his co-directors felt that a reasonable contribution should be made towards their costs and that the sum of 50 guineas which was suggested might in the circumstances be allowed.
After some discussion it was
Resolved to recommend:- That, in view of the fact that the Priory Estate Company Limited have consented to convey to the Council 15 acres 2 roods and 6 perches of land, being 2 roods and 6 perches more than the quantity of land originally agreed to be conveyed, the Council contribute the sum of 50 guineas in part payment of the costs which the Company will incur in connection with the conveyance of the land.
3rd June 1908 – Minute of KN&N UDC
Mr. Councillor Shann presented the following report of the Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee.
Kings Heath Park
Your Committee beg to report that they have considered a request from the solicitors to the vendors of the proposed park at King’s Heath that the Council should contribute 50 guineas towards the costs which will be incurred by them in connection with the conveyance of the park to the Council, and inasmuch as the area of the land which the vendors have agreed to convey is 15 acres 2 roods and 6 perches of land, being 2 roods and 6 perches more than the quantity of land originally agreed to be conveyed, your Committee beg to recommend that the Council contribute the sum of fifty guineas in part payment of vendors’ solicitors’ costs as above mentioned.
It was moved by Mr. Councillor Shann, and seconded by Mr. Councillor Coley,
273 That the Council contribute the sum of fifty guineas in part payment of the costs which will be incurred by the vendors’ solicitors in connection with the conveyance of the proposed park at King’s Heath, and that the clerk be authorised to sign the contract for the purchase of the park for and on behalf of the Council.
As an Amendment –
It was moved by Mr. Councillor Lane, and seconded by Mr. Councillor Hayes,
That, having regard to the very heavy financial responsibilities of the Council in the near future, further negotiations for the acquisition of the house and land for the proposed park at King’s Heath be dropped.
After some discussion the amendment was withdrawn, with the consent of the Council, and upon the original motion being put to the vote it was carried, with two dissentions, and resolved accordingly.
6th June 1908 – Birmingham News
..................... With regard to the provision of a playing field, the Baths and Parks Committee of the Urban District Council could not take any steps at present for granting the use of a portion of the Kings Heath Park. The committee would further consider the matter as soon as the property had been acquired by the Council.
...................
6th June 1908 – Birmingham News
Kings Norton Higher Education Committee
Teachers’ Classes: Pupil Teacher Centre
..................... With regard to the provision of a playing field, the Baths and Parks Committee of the Urban District Council could not take any steps at present for granting the use of a portion of the Kings Heath Park. The committee would further consider the matter as soon as the property had been acquired by the Council.
------------------------------
Kings Norton and Northfield Urban District Council
The need for economy:
Councillor Lane proposes abandonment of Kings Heath Park scheme
...................
The Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee recommended “That the Council contribute the sum of fifty guineas in part payment of the costs which will be incurred by the vendor’s solicitors in connection with the conveyance of the proposed park at Kings Heath”. The Committee explained that a request to this effect had been received from the vendor’s solicitors and justified their recommendation by explaining that the area of the land which the vendors had agreed to convey proved to be 2 roods, 6 perches more than the quantity originally agreed to be conveyed.
Councillor Shann, chairman of the committee, further explained the matter in moving the acceptance of the recommendation. When the question of the acquisition of the park was discussed the committee proceeded on the assumption that they were getting certain things which they thought necessary to be acquired, but when more accurate measurement came to be taken, it was found that certain things were not included in the 15 acres stated as the area of the land, and consequently the committee had to ask for a further 2 roods, 6 perches. An option was originally reserved of acquiring 3 acres more, at a cost of £1,000 per acre, and the half acre mentioned above is actually part of those 3 acres, and the vendors had said that the Council ought to pay another £600 for it. The committee disputed that, and the outcome of the negotiations which ensued was a recommendation to contribute 50 gns. towards the conveyancing costs.
Councillor Coley seconded. Considering that the vendors had given way on the xxxx of payment for the extra half acre he thought it a fair proposal to pay the 50 gns. they asked for, which, if it were a question of paying the proper fee would be lees than they were entitled to.
Councillor Lane moved as an amendment, “That having regard to the very heavy financial responsibilities of the Council in the near future, it is hereby resolved that further negotiations for the acquisition of the house and land for the proposed park at Kings Heath be stopped”. He explained that when he tacitly agreed to the purchase of the park he did so because he thought the mansion on the grounds might be used temporarily for public offices. That did not now seem likely to come about and therefore he did not think the Council would be justified in paying so much money for a park.
Councillor Hayes seconded the amendment, and said that from the first he had been opposed to the purchase of this stately but dilapidated mansion. No doubt it appeared very poetical to the Socialists, but it was prose and pain to the ratepayers.
Councillor Mason said he objected to the amendment, because Kings Heath was entitled to a park, and there was no other site so suitable for the purpose. It was not fair to discuss the house at all, as the land was cheap at the total price paid.
Councillor Hayes seconded the amendment, and said that from the first he had been opposed to the purchase of this stately but dilapidated mansion. No doubt it appeared very poetical to the Socialists, but it was prose and pain to the ratepayers.
Councillor Mason said he objected to the amendment, because Kings Heath was entitled to a park, and there was no other site so suitable for the purpose. It was not fair to discuss the house at all, as the land was cheap at the total price paid.
Councillor Coley objected to the question of the acquisition of the park being mixed up with the question of public offices. He did not agree that in purchasing the park the Council were doing anything it ought not to do. The park would be a place of recreation for the people of Kings Heath. Mr. Hayes could get fresh air on his motor car, and the park would enable the people of Kings Heath and district to get away from the dust which the motor cars raised.
Councillor Fryer asked if there were any financial responsibilities contemplated that were not perfectly well-known to the Council at the time the decision to purchase the park was arrived at. He knew of none. The committee did not lose sight of the possibility of the house being used for the purpose which Mr. Lane had mentioned, but in their recommendation that was not an essential factor.
Councillor Brown agreed with Mr. Lane that the Council ought not in view of the financial situation, to rush headlong into expenditure, but at the same time he did not think the Council ought to go back upon the decision arrived at to purchase the park.
Councillors Bishop, Dawson and Whittaker also spoke against the amendment, which, in view of the expression of opinion elicited, Mr. Lane, with the consent of his seconder, withdrew.
Councillor Shann, replying upon the discussion generally, stated in answer to Councillor Kelly that the total capital expenditure upon other parks and recreation grounds in the district was less than £4,000. They were not paying 50 guineas for nothing, as they were getting 2 roods, 6 perches of land more than the Council thought they were getting when they bought the property. The recommendation was adopted and the report approved.
Councillor Shann, alluding to the entertainments in the parks, mentioned that the committee wanted bands to play in all the Council’s parks and recreation grounds, and not merely in those of the locality with which the band were specially connected. He hoped to receive further applications from bands.
(Later in this same report the discussion regarding the acquisition of public offices for the Council
contained the following:)
Councillor Lane moved as an amendment that “Kings Heath House”, situate in the property which the Council is acquiring as a park, be adapted for the purpose of temporary offices. He urged that the time was not opportune for going in for the expenditure involved in the provision of permanent office buildings.
The Surveyor stated that the house could be adapted for £420, exclusive of board room furniture.
Councillor Brown seconded the amendment.
The amendment was lost by 15 votes to 12, with 1 neutral, as follows:-
For: Messrs. Bishop, Bradley, Brown, Bryan, Cocks, Coley, Dawson, Lane, Lilley, Mason, Watts and Whittaker.
Against: Messrs. Allen, Bednall, Callwood, Farrell, Fryer, Grant, Harbun, Hayes, Kelley, Payne, Quinney, Shann, Shepherd, Spencer and Wilson.
Neutral: The Chairman.
-----------------------------------------
Letters to the Editor
Kings Heath Park
To the Editor
Sir, - The news which reaches me tonight is most pleasurable, for I learn that the “Chancellor of the Exchequer”, or, I should say, the Chairman of the Kings Norton District Council Finance Committee, moved a resolution to stop expenditure owing to the heavy debt now weighing upon the Council.
This same Chairman, Mr. Councillor J.C. Lane, moved an amendment to another resolution asking the Councillors to rescind a former resolution and stop the negotiations for the Kings Heath Park.
The Local Government Board have under consideration the evidence of ratepayers who oppose such wild-cat schemes as are springing up without any regard for the ratepayers wishes, and this additional evidence will be forwarded at once for consideration.
To formulate these schemes costs time, and the greater the expenditure the higher salaries the officials can demand from Councillors who like to be in close touch with big pots! (to use a slang phrase). - Yours faithfully,
“Waste Not”
Moseley, June 4, 1908.
Kings Norton Council: A Record Meeting
To the Editor
Sir, - being desirous of hearing what would be said on the subject of your able article of Saturday week on the need for economy by this District Council, I went to the meeting on Wednesday.
The Kings Heath Park question came up first, and the Chancellor had a motion on the agenda which I heard described as “artful” (totally unexpected from such a guileless quarter), whereat I was surprised until I twisted the matter over in my mind during the arguments, when it suddenly dawned upon me that it was of the double-barreled order – on the one hand economic and the other a move to emphasise the desire for the park – the second shot brought the bird down. Then came the financial question I wanted to hear about – the boss was all there and had a good grasp of his subject, as your report will doubtless show. I took a look round at the downcast go-to-meeting kind of looks of the Council men, and thought this had touched them deeply, and I rather expected some of them, through what appeared to be tears (though it was probably sweat), to shout “Economy for ever”, “The Lord have mercy on us”, but the Friar of Orders Grey having cried out that we are not bankrupt yet, they seemed to dry up saying “Are we downhearted? No”, and ne’er a penny shall be recklessly spent except for drink, in the days to come, and then the pious resolution was passed – though how they are to look it in the face I really cannot see, or what good it is likely to do, bearing in mind that it was admitted that above £100,000 will soon be wanted, involving £6,000 of £7,000 a year addition to the rates, an instalment or two of which they almost directly proceeded to call up, and then the all important question of public offices came on, and here the second barrel of the Chancellor’s gun went off (but missed fire unluckily), in the shape of an amendment to the proposal to the buying of an expensive piece of land at Kings Norton as a start. He maintained that the mansion in the Kings Heath Park could be utilised at an expense of about £500 for a few years, until the district had fairly settled down; and the other expensive items had been disposed of. In this he was backed up by the Surveyor and Mr. Bishop, a builder, who said the place was readily adaptable. The late chairman was grievously out in his tactics by bringing up ancient history, and only the latter part of his heavy discourse was at all pertinent to the matter – the other oratorical effects were of the usual stamp, but I thought the chairman went off the line into a siding to get up steam and let it off in anything but a style to be expected from the office he held; indeed, in my thinking it was undignified to a degree. In the end the Moseleyites were beaten by a combination of the Shannites, the Hayseites, and the countrymen, and in due course it is highly probable a palatial building will rear its magnificent head for the glorification of the Cotteridge and Middleton Hall Road. The sitting occupied the record time of 5½ hours, with the exception of a short interval for tea, the fighting qualities of which beverage were never more clearly shown than by what took place after the liberal incorporation thereof, though I think some gents would have liked something more “nippy”. I must say, in conclusion, that the varied styles of eloquence were much enjoyed by me; but what odds so long as the ratepayers will not make ructions? The bulk of the Council whine over the cry of economy, and then proceed to evolve some scheme to spend money and secure their own glorification; indeed one Labour man got the reporters locked out whilst a discussion took place over refusing a contract for work and letting it for a higher price. Economy like that be blowed. Eh, what?
Sarbut
10th June 1908 - Minute of KN&N UDC, Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee
Kings Heath Park – Continued.
20th June 1908 – Birmingham News
Sir, - To enquire what the ratepayers are thinking about is going rather too far in the Kings Norton and Northfield urban area. The real question is, are there any ratepayers?
At the Council meeting on the 3rd inst., the Surveyor reported that the public offices could be made by an expenditure of £420 on the house situate in the park at Kings Heath – so the overtaxed grumbling ratepayers have a servant who gives them welcome news – yet their respected representatives, termed councillors, propose another resolution which will mean an additional 10d in the £ if the Council pay ready money, but if they borrow, as is their wont, the rates will be increased 2d instead of only 1d.
To service public offices and a pretty park for about the cost of offices alone should be sufficient incentive to the ratepayers to present a petition to the Local Government Board and insure them against extravagance which arises through the Local Government Board permitting Councils to borrow instead of paying ready cash. - Yours truly,
“Post Mortem”
Moseley, 16th June, 1908.
27th June 1908 – Birmingham News
When?
Kings Heath people have almost forgotten that they are to have a park, and have given up speculating when it will be ready for their use. Nevertheless, I am told that the matter has not been lost sight of, and that it will come off after all.
4 July 1908 - Birmingham News
Baths and Parks
.................. Answering queries, Mr. Shann informed Mr. Coley that there was no hitch in the proceedings in regard to Kings Heath Park, and that all the committee was waiting for was the Local Government Board enquiry.
11 July 1908 - Birmingham News
Dere mister editor, - Will you let me venterlate a greevunce thru yore valeribul paper, cos it aint only meeself wot’s bin took in, but a lot more chaps wot lives in Kings ‘eath an’ i wants ter speek up for em, bein’ a bit of a skollar. You no; a lot of them blokes wot we sent ter the Council ‘as bin promisin’ us a park; wel’, i promist my ole dutch as ide tek ‘er an’ the kids, the fust day they opened it, but i waited an’ waited till i wos tired, wen erlong comes a bloke an’ asks for votes, sayin’ as ‘e wos in faver of parks and barthes; so i ses ter me pals, “Now chaps! Nows yer time,” an’ away we flocked an’ voted, an’ sure enuf last Saterday i thort ‘e’d done the trick so i thumps me manerly chest an’ ses ter meself, “Now Jack, my lad, you noes ‘ow ter vote, an’ no swank.”
It all comes erbout like this; as i wos comin’ from work up vickeridge road larst Saterdy arternoon i seed a lot er fokes goin’ inter the park gates; so i don’t stop ter arsk no questions but meks strait for me own carstle; only dodgin’ down one side road so as ter miss me faverit callin’ place; cos i shud ‘ave ter stop an’ treat reserlution if i got egenst a pub; but wen i got ter me own doorstep, you shud er sin me missises face, “Wots up Jack,” er ses “’as yer gaffer gone broke an’ aint paid yer, or ‘ave yer lorst yer wages? Come, tell me the wurst, cost ther must be summet ther matter for you to cum strait um on pay day!”
“Chuck it, Marther,” i ses “ther parks opened ter day, an’ if yer leave orf bein’ funny, ile tek you an’ ther kids, an ave a good time.” “How’ll yer get time ter get yer skin full er booze if yer does” ses Marther. “Never yer mind, i can mek up ernother time,” i ses. Well you shuld er sin wot a kermotion ther was fer a short time at our ‘ouse; out goes Iserbeller Jane, fer arf a pound er pigs puddin’ fer dinner; orf goes Maude Matilder fer a few yards er yeller ribbon ter mek um look spruce, wile Alexander John pops an’ gets sum sope. In a short time we wos orl ready, an’ ‘orf went the missis an’ ther kids – blessum – with ther faces shinin’ on ercount er being’ nice an’ clean, wile i follers up, and catches um round the corner, cos we didn’t want ther neybors ter charf us erbout bein’ out together, tho anybody might er bin proud er me old dutch, ‘er looked as spruce as wen i fust met ‘er, an’ i ses ter meself, if we gets over this day orl right an’ enjoys it well, it wunt be the larst time, ile put me booze er one side an’ give um a treat. Well, we gets ter the gate an’ wot does we see? Wy a feller teckin tickets ‘an money, an’ wen we trys ter get thrue they wants sixpence erpiec orf us. “Wot yer mean,” i ses, “we ain’t got ter pay ter go in ther park ‘ave we?”
“it ain’t a park yet “he ses, “you aint got one yet.” “Well i wos took in, an’ as i turns erway: who shud i see but me pal, Ted Jones, an i tells im me budget, an’ ‘e larfs an’ ses, “Wy carnt yer read that bill?” “Wot bill ses i? My names Jack, not Bill.” “Don’t be a mug ‘e ses,” i mean that bill on ther bored theer,” an there read summut erbout “gardin” party, fate, or summat like it.” Well wot about the park” i ses, wots ther councellors a doin’ in ther matter?” “You see.” Ses Ted “er cos nothing wunt be done yet, cos they’ll orl be on ther ollerdays for a few weeks now,” but yer no theres a pond in ther grounds don’t yer?” “Yes!” i ses “but wots that to do with it?” “Cos yer mite get in ergenst there come skatin’” At that ‘e goes orf an i did’nt arf feel let down, an’ when i looked for ther missis er wos goin’ round the next corner like mad, with a kid yellin’ away on both er ‘ands so i meks fer me faverit ‘ouse ter drown me sorrers, an’ succeeded in gettin’ me skin full arter all, only i spoilt me best duds, as i don’t dress up, ter booze as errule an’ they don’t stand proppin walls up, very well. - Yours sorrerfully, JACK ‘IGGINS
Kings Heath, July 6th, 1908.
25 July 1908 - Birmingham News
Never has there been a Local Government Board enquiry held in the district which excited so deep an interest as the one which took place on Wednesday morning at Kings Heath Institute, to enquire into the application made by the Urban District Council of Kings Norton and Northfield, for sanction to borrow the sum of £11,000 for the purchase of Kings Heath House, for the purpose of a public park. The enquiry was conducted by Mr. H. Shelford Bidwell, M.Inst.C.E.
Nearly the whole of the Council were present, including Councillors J.J. Moffat (chairman), J.W.B. Brown, W. Coley, A.C. Hayes, J.C. Lane, T. Mason, M. Watts, W. Bishop, A.J. Kelley, E.B. Bryan, E. Shephard, J. Cryer, E. Whittaker, A.E. Dawson, P. Farrell, Cocks. There were also present County Councillors A.G. Buller and J. Heaven, Major J.H. Cartland, the Rev. W.J. Roxburgh, Rev. Wilson Stuart, Rev. M. Dolan, and many ratepayers, and not a few ladies.
Mr. Edwin Docker, the Clerk to the Council, in the course of a lengthy and exhaustive address to the Inspector, said the matter was of very considerable importance for various reasons. First of all because the Council were asking for sanction to expend a sum larger than they had ever found necessary for that particular purpose, and because they felt that the land required for the purpose recommended itself. He apologised for the absence of the Chairman of the Baths and Parks Committee, Councillor Shann, who was out of England on important business.
After giving statistics showing the large population, the assessable and rateable value of the district, and its indebtedness, Mr. Docker remarked that the population had trebled in 17 years. The area was practically twice that of Birmingham, with one-sixth of the population. Birmingham’s rateable value was at a standstill, while the Kings Norton and Northfield district was rapidly developing both in point of population and in point of rateable value. It was within the range of possibility that the district would outgrow in these respects its neighbour. Therefore, the Inspector would see that it was a great and wonderful district.
The Council had always been keenly desirous of providing parks and open spaces, either by gift if possible or by purchase, because they held that they were greatly conducive to the good government of the district, to the better preservation and maintenance of the public health, especially of young children, and generally beneficial to the community. The first park was acquired by gift in February 1899, consisting of a site in Old Lane, Selly Oak, of 11a. 2r. 5p., which was given through the good offices of the late respected Mr. Thomas Gibbins and his family, and was known as the Gibbins Park; then on 20th May, 1905, the Council acquired by gift a second park in Umberslade Road, Selly Oak, of three acres, from Mr. F.E. Muntz. On 29th July, 1905, they acquired by gift a further park known as Victoria Common, Northfield, of four acres, given by the generosity of Mr. George Cadbury. The Council were indebted to Mr. Cadbury and other members of his family for many generous gifts. On the 8th February, 1905, the Council purchased Cotteridge Park, containing 12a. 2r. 1p., for £2,655, from the Russell and Stock’s Trustees. In November 1906, Mr. W.A. Cadbury gave 1¼ acres at Stirchley Street, and on 29th September, 1906, the Council acquired 4,510 square yards in George Road, Bournbrook, so that the Council had not been unmindful of their duty in endeavouring to secure public parks and open spaces on every possible opportunity. The total area secured was now 33 acres.
The present loan asked for was £11,000 to purchase 15a. 2r. 6p., the property of the Priory Estate Company, with a valuable building frontage, and was immediately available for building purposes. The price was reasonable and comparatively cheap in view of the fact that the Council had acquired land 1½ miles away at £1,000 per acre. They would now be paying £643 per acre, deducting £1,000 as the value of the substantial mansion and lodge in the grounds. Land usually required a considerable expenditure to make it suitable for the purpose of a park, but in this case the site was really an ideal one – (hear, hear) – and a very small expenditure would be necessary beyond the upkeep. It was enclosed by a grand belt of trees, contained flower beds, lawns, shrubs, fish pond, pool, and everything that was desirable for a public park. The original price asked was £15,000, but after considerable negotiations, and through the kind offices of the chairman of the company, Major Cartland, who had taken a great interest in the matter, it was reduced to £11,000.
Having given figures as to the population to be served by the park, and the relative growth of the various districts, Mr. Docker referred to the opposition threatened by Mr. Hayes, and said he believed the Inspector would, after seeing the site, feel that the Council had selected an ideal spot, and that the beauty of the scene would make a silent appeal to him far more convincing than any arguments he could put before him, or Mr. Hayes, with all his skill, could advance. The Inspector would, he was sure, feel that the Council had had taken time by the forelock, and acted wisely and well in seeking to provide that beautiful piece of land for all time for the benefit of the community at large. (Loud applause.)
The Inspector, rising from his seat, sternly said: “Please! This is not a public meeting. It is a Government enquiry. Neither applause nor dissent is suitable for this occasion”.
Mr. Frank Smith, land agent, member of the Worcestershire County Council and Standing Joint Committee, in reply to Mr. Docker, said the value of the land in the district of Kings Heath was rapidly increasing. He considered the site an ideal one for a park. It was studded with fine timber, and he considered the price was moderate, considering the price of other land.
Councillor Hayes informed the Inspector that he appeared on behalf of the Selly Oak and District Ratepayers’ Association to oppose, but he wished it to be understood that he did not appear professionally or with any reward or gratuity.
Mr. Smith, in answer to Mr. Hayes, said about a quarter of the area of Kings Heath was developed. He was aware of another site, containing six acres but it had a main road frontage and was not to be named with the Kings Heath House land. There was no timber on it, and it was not suitable for a public park. There was a depression in it, and it contained water eight or nine months of the year. It was also removed from the centre of population, and would mean a considerable expense to make it suitable.
Mr. Ambrose W. Cross, surveyor to the Council, considered the site chosen absolutely perfect. They had been unable to find any other site. The Council had paid £1,000 for school purposes at Selly Park, and there was no comparison as regards value for building. The alternative site mentioned by Mr. Hayes was a swamp, and would cost as much as the proposed site to render it suitable. As a matter of fact the alternative piece of land had been the subject of negotiations for the purpose of allotments, the holders of the Council allotments about to be dispossessed.
By Mr. Hayes: Canon Hill Park was a mile and a half distant. Quite 75 per cent of the inhabitants of Kings Heath lived in houses with small gardens. A site at Pine Apple Bridge would cost £350 per acre, plus road making, but that would be nearer Stirchley, which already had two parks. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners intended to develop the land opposite the proposed park. This would develop very rapidly.
By Mr. W. Coley: In addition to the 9½ acres at Cotteridge Park, it was proposed to add three or four more acres to it.
By Mr. Docker; Cannon Hill Park better served the ward of Selly Oak East.
By Mr. Francis Knight: Kings Heath house would cost between £400 and £500 to adapt for public offices.
By the Inspector: The rooms could be used for the residence of the caretaker, and as refreshment rooms.
Mr. Moffat said that in view of the extreme urgency for the provision of a school to relieve the pressure it had been suggested by the Education Committee to use the house for a temporary school, but it had not yet been before the Council.
Councillor Bishop said it was the wish of the residents that a park should be provided.
Councillor Dawson concurred, and said he found in a recent canvas he made at his election there was complete unanimity in favour of the park.
Councillor Whittaker said the provision of a park was one of the main reasons for his being brought forward as a candidate for the Council. Feeling was very keen in the district on the subject. So far as he was concerned there had been two public meetings where the subject had been brought forward and enthusiastically received. The working men whom he represented were very insistent on the question. There could not be a more suitable site, and he regarded the price a fair one.
Mr. Hayes pressed the clerk as to the obligations of the Council, and alleged that they were pledged to a hundred thousand pounds scheme for electric light.
The Clerk denied this.
Mr. Hayes said they were also committed to another £50,000 for education and £15,000 for offices.
County Councillor Buller, as a large ratepayer and resident for 22 years, gave the scheme his heartiest support. The site was ideal, the price reasonable, and the time propitious. He could not conceive a wiser course of action than to secure for ever for the workers and the children of that locality one of the most beautiful and attractive parks that could be found. The opposition was limited and based on false economy. It was easy to pose as an economist, but there were things which were cheap and nasty. It seemed that some people were more afraid of a ½d rate than of doing the community good. He also thought that much of the opposition was due to the fear of some as to what would happen at the next election.
Councillor J.C. Lane, as chairman of the Finance Committee, admitted that he had previously been opposed to the scheme, but after enquiries he had come to the conclusion that it was the best thing the Council could do, and was for the good of the public at large. In a few years it would be impossible to get a park at anything like the price.
Mr. Moffat, the chairman of the Council, also supported.
Councillor W. Coley traced the history of the negotiations, in which he had taken a leading part, and showed that no other site was available. He made the subject a plank of his platform in his election in Wake Green Ward, and found no one opposed to it.
Councillor J.W.B. Brown, as the oldest member of the Council, also heartily supported.
The Rev. W.J. Roxburgh, vicar of Kings Heath, speaking from his experience in London, urged that the park was most vital to the welfare of the district, and would inevitably be largely populated from the city. The outflow of population was always along tram lines.
Councillor J. Fryer, a member of the Baths and Parks Committee, speaking on behalf of the children of the working class, said they must not only think of the present needs, but the requirements of the future. They must make the provision while there was time.
Mr. Francis Knight was understood to mean that he did not oppose the park so long as the Council would use the house for public offices. It would be a scandal to use a mansion for caretaker’s apartments and a coffee house. He asked the Inspector to compel the Council to use the house for offices.
The Inspector reminded Mr. Knight that he could not dictate to the Board what they should do.
Mr. D. French heartily supported, as did Mr. Eldred Hallas, chairman of the Kings Heath Labour Representation Committee, who said the fact that 2,000 children in Kings Heath were without a playground was sufficient reason for their hearty support.
Mr. Hayes, in a long speech in opposition, denied that they did not want Kings Heath to have a park. They did; but not on such elaborate and costly lines. It was a most hazardous speculation, having regard to the heavy obligations of the Council. Kings Heath was not a congested area. What was wanted were open spaces, where the children could play without being kept off the grass by a park keeper and a knob stick. He should not mind Kings Heath having more than one open space if necessary. The alternative site he had suggested would be practically given to the Council in exchange for certain concessions with regard to road making and sewering. Whatever parks Selly Oak and district possessed were gifts, with the exception of one, costing £2,250. Selly Oak had a population of 27,900, mostly of the artisan class, whereas Kings Heath had but half that population, and were largely of the better class, with gardens. The district had thriven because the rates were 2s. less than Birmingham. If the rates rose, as he prophesied, as a result of all this and other outlay, the difference which had existed between Birmingham and Kings Norton would disappear, and the latter would either be engulfed by the city or they would cease to thrive. At the rate and terms of interest, he contended the cost would be £28,740. Mr. Hayes called Mr. Roberts, president of the Selly Oak Ratepayers Association, and other members to support the opposition. They denied that they were selfish. They would like to see Kings Heath have open spaces for the children to romp in, but not a park at such a price.
Councillor M. Watts supported, and said they were not talking of mere playing grounds for the children, but a place secured for all time, where the whole of the inhabitants could find enjoyment. The plea that Cannon Hill Park could be used was a foolish one. They had no wish to be incorporated with Birmingham, and they knew what Birmingham would say to this argument.
Councillor Shephard opposed the scheme as absolutely unnecessary. They did not want large parks where the children were not allowed on the grass. The burden of the rates was already too heavy.
Mr. Docker having replied to the objections, the enquiry so far as the park was concerned was concluded.
After the luncheon interval the Inspector held an enquiry into the application of the Council for sanction to borrow £950 for the purposes of Selly Oak Baths.
After the termination of the enquiry the Inspector personally inspected the proposed and alternative sites.
Vicar of Kings Heath and the Park Question
The Vicar of All Saints’, the Rev. W.J. Roxburgh, preaching on Sunday on behalf of the annual appeal for the choir funds, made a reference to the question of a park for Kings Heath, and criticised the action of the opponents of the scheme. The Vicar asked the congregation to support the fund as well as they could because it represented their effort to make the worship of God as beautiful as it could be made. The idea of associating beauty with religion had not always been common, indeed in nearly all the early forms of religion the idea of the beautiful was more marked by its absence than its presence. This was very largely due to the fact that in the evolution of religion the goal to be aimed at was to obey God from fear of punishment, rather than to obey Him from a sense of appreciation. Even in the religious system of the Hebrews, know to history as the Hebrew Church, the chief aim of religion was to obey the commandments, and little else. With the advent of Christianity the movement of the race towards God reached its highest level, because it made duty to man, duty to God. Therefore the Christian claimed everything for his neighbour and not for himself. The Christian claimed all the best products of human intelligence for the benefit of his fellow. The Church had realised this in the centuries which had succeeded Jesus Christ; She had resuscitated architecture and made it a public art, instead of a private one; She had resuscitated painting, and by the paintings in the great churches had made the art for ever public; she practically re-discovered music and had made it a public possession. If all that the Church had done for architecture, for painting and for music, were eliminated from the history of these great schools of human achievement there would be desperately little remaining. It was therefore the duty of all intelligent Churchmen and Churchwomen to maintain the glorious tradition of the Church of Christ and make the building in which they worshipped God, and the music in which they offered their worship as beautiful as they could make it. Let it be by all means popular, but let it never go down to a popular level. Let it ever elevate popular taste. But this principle did not only apply to music. It also made it necessary for Christians and Church folk especially to do all they could to give opportunities to those who had not the advantages of the better placed, in seeing the beauties of nature to do so. There must be many who lived near Birmingham who knew what the Black Country was like. Ruskin had described the Black Country as “a county of cities built on ash heaps with a sky above them which was manufactured below.” It was intolerable to think what kind of education in beauty amid such surroundings could be afforded to the children of that district. How to remedy such a state of things was a difficult problem, but at all events the people of Kings Heath had an opportunity to do something in providing a beautiful park for those who succeeded them in that parish. It was impossible for any man or woman who believed in the union of the good and beautiful as a Christian ought to do, to oppose such a scheme. He had been amazed to find there were people in the district who were opposed to it. The only way to remedy the building of modern ugly cities was to take time by the forelock, and provide parks and open spaces while there was yet the opportunity. Had this policy been pursued in the Black Country three generations ago, it would not have been such a wilderness of ugliness as it was today.
29th July 1908 – Minute of KN&N UDC, and reported on
1 August 1908 – Birmingham News
In the absence of the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Councillor Moffat presented the following report of the Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee.
20th June 1908 – Birmingham News
Letters to the Editor
Pubic Offices and the Park
To the Editor
Sir, - To enquire what the ratepayers are thinking about is going rather too far in the Kings Norton and Northfield urban area. The real question is, are there any ratepayers?
At the Council meeting on the 3rd inst., the Surveyor reported that the public offices could be made by an expenditure of £420 on the house situate in the park at Kings Heath – so the overtaxed grumbling ratepayers have a servant who gives them welcome news – yet their respected representatives, termed councillors, propose another resolution which will mean an additional 10d in the £ if the Council pay ready money, but if they borrow, as is their wont, the rates will be increased 2d instead of only 1d.
To service public offices and a pretty park for about the cost of offices alone should be sufficient incentive to the ratepayers to present a petition to the Local Government Board and insure them against extravagance which arises through the Local Government Board permitting Councils to borrow instead of paying ready cash. - Yours truly,
“Post Mortem”
Moseley, 16th June, 1908.
27th June 1908 – Birmingham News
Village Gossip
When?
Kings Heath people have almost forgotten that they are to have a park, and have given up speculating when it will be ready for their use. Nevertheless, I am told that the matter has not been lost sight of, and that it will come off after all.
Baths and Parks
.................. Answering queries, Mr. Shann informed Mr. Coley that there was no hitch in the proceedings in regard to Kings Heath Park, and that all the committee was waiting for was the Local Government Board enquiry.
Kings Heath Park Question
To the Editor.
Dere mister editor, - Will you let me venterlate a greevunce thru yore valeribul paper, cos it aint only meeself wot’s bin took in, but a lot more chaps wot lives in Kings ‘eath an’ i wants ter speek up for em, bein’ a bit of a skollar. You no; a lot of them blokes wot we sent ter the Council ‘as bin promisin’ us a park; wel’, i promist my ole dutch as ide tek ‘er an’ the kids, the fust day they opened it, but i waited an’ waited till i wos tired, wen erlong comes a bloke an’ asks for votes, sayin’ as ‘e wos in faver of parks and barthes; so i ses ter me pals, “Now chaps! Nows yer time,” an’ away we flocked an’ voted, an’ sure enuf last Saterday i thort ‘e’d done the trick so i thumps me manerly chest an’ ses ter meself, “Now Jack, my lad, you noes ‘ow ter vote, an’ no swank.”
It all comes erbout like this; as i wos comin’ from work up vickeridge road larst Saterdy arternoon i seed a lot er fokes goin’ inter the park gates; so i don’t stop ter arsk no questions but meks strait for me own carstle; only dodgin’ down one side road so as ter miss me faverit callin’ place; cos i shud ‘ave ter stop an’ treat reserlution if i got egenst a pub; but wen i got ter me own doorstep, you shud er sin me missises face, “Wots up Jack,” er ses “’as yer gaffer gone broke an’ aint paid yer, or ‘ave yer lorst yer wages? Come, tell me the wurst, cost ther must be summet ther matter for you to cum strait um on pay day!”
“Chuck it, Marther,” i ses “ther parks opened ter day, an’ if yer leave orf bein’ funny, ile tek you an’ ther kids, an ave a good time.” “How’ll yer get time ter get yer skin full er booze if yer does” ses Marther. “Never yer mind, i can mek up ernother time,” i ses. Well you shuld er sin wot a kermotion ther was fer a short time at our ‘ouse; out goes Iserbeller Jane, fer arf a pound er pigs puddin’ fer dinner; orf goes Maude Matilder fer a few yards er yeller ribbon ter mek um look spruce, wile Alexander John pops an’ gets sum sope. In a short time we wos orl ready, an’ ‘orf went the missis an’ ther kids – blessum – with ther faces shinin’ on ercount er being’ nice an’ clean, wile i follers up, and catches um round the corner, cos we didn’t want ther neybors ter charf us erbout bein’ out together, tho anybody might er bin proud er me old dutch, ‘er looked as spruce as wen i fust met ‘er, an’ i ses ter meself, if we gets over this day orl right an’ enjoys it well, it wunt be the larst time, ile put me booze er one side an’ give um a treat. Well, we gets ter the gate an’ wot does we see? Wy a feller teckin tickets ‘an money, an’ wen we trys ter get thrue they wants sixpence erpiec orf us. “Wot yer mean,” i ses, “we ain’t got ter pay ter go in ther park ‘ave we?”
“it ain’t a park yet “he ses, “you aint got one yet.” “Well i wos took in, an’ as i turns erway: who shud i see but me pal, Ted Jones, an i tells im me budget, an’ ‘e larfs an’ ses, “Wy carnt yer read that bill?” “Wot bill ses i? My names Jack, not Bill.” “Don’t be a mug ‘e ses,” i mean that bill on ther bored theer,” an there read summut erbout “gardin” party, fate, or summat like it.” Well wot about the park” i ses, wots ther councellors a doin’ in ther matter?” “You see.” Ses Ted “er cos nothing wunt be done yet, cos they’ll orl be on ther ollerdays for a few weeks now,” but yer no theres a pond in ther grounds don’t yer?” “Yes!” i ses “but wots that to do with it?” “Cos yer mite get in ergenst there come skatin’” At that ‘e goes orf an i did’nt arf feel let down, an’ when i looked for ther missis er wos goin’ round the next corner like mad, with a kid yellin’ away on both er ‘ands so i meks fer me faverit ‘ouse ter drown me sorrers, an’ succeeded in gettin’ me skin full arter all, only i spoilt me best duds, as i don’t dress up, ter booze as errule an’ they don’t stand proppin walls up, very well. - Yours sorrerfully, JACK ‘IGGINS
Kings Heath, July 6th, 1908.
Kings Heath Park
Opposition at the Local Government Board Inquiry
Mr. Hayes attacks the Scheme
Never has there been a Local Government Board enquiry held in the district which excited so deep an interest as the one which took place on Wednesday morning at Kings Heath Institute, to enquire into the application made by the Urban District Council of Kings Norton and Northfield, for sanction to borrow the sum of £11,000 for the purchase of Kings Heath House, for the purpose of a public park. The enquiry was conducted by Mr. H. Shelford Bidwell, M.Inst.C.E.
Nearly the whole of the Council were present, including Councillors J.J. Moffat (chairman), J.W.B. Brown, W. Coley, A.C. Hayes, J.C. Lane, T. Mason, M. Watts, W. Bishop, A.J. Kelley, E.B. Bryan, E. Shephard, J. Cryer, E. Whittaker, A.E. Dawson, P. Farrell, Cocks. There were also present County Councillors A.G. Buller and J. Heaven, Major J.H. Cartland, the Rev. W.J. Roxburgh, Rev. Wilson Stuart, Rev. M. Dolan, and many ratepayers, and not a few ladies.
Mr. Edwin Docker, the Clerk to the Council, in the course of a lengthy and exhaustive address to the Inspector, said the matter was of very considerable importance for various reasons. First of all because the Council were asking for sanction to expend a sum larger than they had ever found necessary for that particular purpose, and because they felt that the land required for the purpose recommended itself. He apologised for the absence of the Chairman of the Baths and Parks Committee, Councillor Shann, who was out of England on important business.
After giving statistics showing the large population, the assessable and rateable value of the district, and its indebtedness, Mr. Docker remarked that the population had trebled in 17 years. The area was practically twice that of Birmingham, with one-sixth of the population. Birmingham’s rateable value was at a standstill, while the Kings Norton and Northfield district was rapidly developing both in point of population and in point of rateable value. It was within the range of possibility that the district would outgrow in these respects its neighbour. Therefore, the Inspector would see that it was a great and wonderful district.
The Council had always been keenly desirous of providing parks and open spaces, either by gift if possible or by purchase, because they held that they were greatly conducive to the good government of the district, to the better preservation and maintenance of the public health, especially of young children, and generally beneficial to the community. The first park was acquired by gift in February 1899, consisting of a site in Old Lane, Selly Oak, of 11a. 2r. 5p., which was given through the good offices of the late respected Mr. Thomas Gibbins and his family, and was known as the Gibbins Park; then on 20th May, 1905, the Council acquired by gift a second park in Umberslade Road, Selly Oak, of three acres, from Mr. F.E. Muntz. On 29th July, 1905, they acquired by gift a further park known as Victoria Common, Northfield, of four acres, given by the generosity of Mr. George Cadbury. The Council were indebted to Mr. Cadbury and other members of his family for many generous gifts. On the 8th February, 1905, the Council purchased Cotteridge Park, containing 12a. 2r. 1p., for £2,655, from the Russell and Stock’s Trustees. In November 1906, Mr. W.A. Cadbury gave 1¼ acres at Stirchley Street, and on 29th September, 1906, the Council acquired 4,510 square yards in George Road, Bournbrook, so that the Council had not been unmindful of their duty in endeavouring to secure public parks and open spaces on every possible opportunity. The total area secured was now 33 acres.
The present loan asked for was £11,000 to purchase 15a. 2r. 6p., the property of the Priory Estate Company, with a valuable building frontage, and was immediately available for building purposes. The price was reasonable and comparatively cheap in view of the fact that the Council had acquired land 1½ miles away at £1,000 per acre. They would now be paying £643 per acre, deducting £1,000 as the value of the substantial mansion and lodge in the grounds. Land usually required a considerable expenditure to make it suitable for the purpose of a park, but in this case the site was really an ideal one – (hear, hear) – and a very small expenditure would be necessary beyond the upkeep. It was enclosed by a grand belt of trees, contained flower beds, lawns, shrubs, fish pond, pool, and everything that was desirable for a public park. The original price asked was £15,000, but after considerable negotiations, and through the kind offices of the chairman of the company, Major Cartland, who had taken a great interest in the matter, it was reduced to £11,000.
Having given figures as to the population to be served by the park, and the relative growth of the various districts, Mr. Docker referred to the opposition threatened by Mr. Hayes, and said he believed the Inspector would, after seeing the site, feel that the Council had selected an ideal spot, and that the beauty of the scene would make a silent appeal to him far more convincing than any arguments he could put before him, or Mr. Hayes, with all his skill, could advance. The Inspector would, he was sure, feel that the Council had had taken time by the forelock, and acted wisely and well in seeking to provide that beautiful piece of land for all time for the benefit of the community at large. (Loud applause.)
The Inspector, rising from his seat, sternly said: “Please! This is not a public meeting. It is a Government enquiry. Neither applause nor dissent is suitable for this occasion”.
Mr. Frank Smith, land agent, member of the Worcestershire County Council and Standing Joint Committee, in reply to Mr. Docker, said the value of the land in the district of Kings Heath was rapidly increasing. He considered the site an ideal one for a park. It was studded with fine timber, and he considered the price was moderate, considering the price of other land.
Councillor Hayes informed the Inspector that he appeared on behalf of the Selly Oak and District Ratepayers’ Association to oppose, but he wished it to be understood that he did not appear professionally or with any reward or gratuity.
Mr. Smith, in answer to Mr. Hayes, said about a quarter of the area of Kings Heath was developed. He was aware of another site, containing six acres but it had a main road frontage and was not to be named with the Kings Heath House land. There was no timber on it, and it was not suitable for a public park. There was a depression in it, and it contained water eight or nine months of the year. It was also removed from the centre of population, and would mean a considerable expense to make it suitable.
Mr. Ambrose W. Cross, surveyor to the Council, considered the site chosen absolutely perfect. They had been unable to find any other site. The Council had paid £1,000 for school purposes at Selly Park, and there was no comparison as regards value for building. The alternative site mentioned by Mr. Hayes was a swamp, and would cost as much as the proposed site to render it suitable. As a matter of fact the alternative piece of land had been the subject of negotiations for the purpose of allotments, the holders of the Council allotments about to be dispossessed.
By Mr. Hayes: Canon Hill Park was a mile and a half distant. Quite 75 per cent of the inhabitants of Kings Heath lived in houses with small gardens. A site at Pine Apple Bridge would cost £350 per acre, plus road making, but that would be nearer Stirchley, which already had two parks. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners intended to develop the land opposite the proposed park. This would develop very rapidly.
By Mr. W. Coley: In addition to the 9½ acres at Cotteridge Park, it was proposed to add three or four more acres to it.
By Mr. Docker; Cannon Hill Park better served the ward of Selly Oak East.
By Mr. Francis Knight: Kings Heath house would cost between £400 and £500 to adapt for public offices.
By the Inspector: The rooms could be used for the residence of the caretaker, and as refreshment rooms.
Mr. Moffat said that in view of the extreme urgency for the provision of a school to relieve the pressure it had been suggested by the Education Committee to use the house for a temporary school, but it had not yet been before the Council.
Councillor Bishop said it was the wish of the residents that a park should be provided.
Councillor Dawson concurred, and said he found in a recent canvas he made at his election there was complete unanimity in favour of the park.
Councillor Whittaker said the provision of a park was one of the main reasons for his being brought forward as a candidate for the Council. Feeling was very keen in the district on the subject. So far as he was concerned there had been two public meetings where the subject had been brought forward and enthusiastically received. The working men whom he represented were very insistent on the question. There could not be a more suitable site, and he regarded the price a fair one.
Mr. Hayes pressed the clerk as to the obligations of the Council, and alleged that they were pledged to a hundred thousand pounds scheme for electric light.
The Clerk denied this.
Mr. Hayes said they were also committed to another £50,000 for education and £15,000 for offices.
County Councillor Buller, as a large ratepayer and resident for 22 years, gave the scheme his heartiest support. The site was ideal, the price reasonable, and the time propitious. He could not conceive a wiser course of action than to secure for ever for the workers and the children of that locality one of the most beautiful and attractive parks that could be found. The opposition was limited and based on false economy. It was easy to pose as an economist, but there were things which were cheap and nasty. It seemed that some people were more afraid of a ½d rate than of doing the community good. He also thought that much of the opposition was due to the fear of some as to what would happen at the next election.
Councillor J.C. Lane, as chairman of the Finance Committee, admitted that he had previously been opposed to the scheme, but after enquiries he had come to the conclusion that it was the best thing the Council could do, and was for the good of the public at large. In a few years it would be impossible to get a park at anything like the price.
Mr. Moffat, the chairman of the Council, also supported.
Councillor W. Coley traced the history of the negotiations, in which he had taken a leading part, and showed that no other site was available. He made the subject a plank of his platform in his election in Wake Green Ward, and found no one opposed to it.
Councillor J.W.B. Brown, as the oldest member of the Council, also heartily supported.
The Rev. W.J. Roxburgh, vicar of Kings Heath, speaking from his experience in London, urged that the park was most vital to the welfare of the district, and would inevitably be largely populated from the city. The outflow of population was always along tram lines.
Councillor J. Fryer, a member of the Baths and Parks Committee, speaking on behalf of the children of the working class, said they must not only think of the present needs, but the requirements of the future. They must make the provision while there was time.
Mr. Francis Knight was understood to mean that he did not oppose the park so long as the Council would use the house for public offices. It would be a scandal to use a mansion for caretaker’s apartments and a coffee house. He asked the Inspector to compel the Council to use the house for offices.
The Inspector reminded Mr. Knight that he could not dictate to the Board what they should do.
Mr. D. French heartily supported, as did Mr. Eldred Hallas, chairman of the Kings Heath Labour Representation Committee, who said the fact that 2,000 children in Kings Heath were without a playground was sufficient reason for their hearty support.
Mr. Hayes, in a long speech in opposition, denied that they did not want Kings Heath to have a park. They did; but not on such elaborate and costly lines. It was a most hazardous speculation, having regard to the heavy obligations of the Council. Kings Heath was not a congested area. What was wanted were open spaces, where the children could play without being kept off the grass by a park keeper and a knob stick. He should not mind Kings Heath having more than one open space if necessary. The alternative site he had suggested would be practically given to the Council in exchange for certain concessions with regard to road making and sewering. Whatever parks Selly Oak and district possessed were gifts, with the exception of one, costing £2,250. Selly Oak had a population of 27,900, mostly of the artisan class, whereas Kings Heath had but half that population, and were largely of the better class, with gardens. The district had thriven because the rates were 2s. less than Birmingham. If the rates rose, as he prophesied, as a result of all this and other outlay, the difference which had existed between Birmingham and Kings Norton would disappear, and the latter would either be engulfed by the city or they would cease to thrive. At the rate and terms of interest, he contended the cost would be £28,740. Mr. Hayes called Mr. Roberts, president of the Selly Oak Ratepayers Association, and other members to support the opposition. They denied that they were selfish. They would like to see Kings Heath have open spaces for the children to romp in, but not a park at such a price.
Councillor M. Watts supported, and said they were not talking of mere playing grounds for the children, but a place secured for all time, where the whole of the inhabitants could find enjoyment. The plea that Cannon Hill Park could be used was a foolish one. They had no wish to be incorporated with Birmingham, and they knew what Birmingham would say to this argument.
Councillor Shephard opposed the scheme as absolutely unnecessary. They did not want large parks where the children were not allowed on the grass. The burden of the rates was already too heavy.
Mr. Docker having replied to the objections, the enquiry so far as the park was concerned was concluded.
After the luncheon interval the Inspector held an enquiry into the application of the Council for sanction to borrow £950 for the purposes of Selly Oak Baths.
After the termination of the enquiry the Inspector personally inspected the proposed and alternative sites.
---------------------------------------
Kings Norton & Northfield District
Kings Heath and Moseley
Vicar of Kings Heath and the Park Question
The Vicar of All Saints’, the Rev. W.J. Roxburgh, preaching on Sunday on behalf of the annual appeal for the choir funds, made a reference to the question of a park for Kings Heath, and criticised the action of the opponents of the scheme. The Vicar asked the congregation to support the fund as well as they could because it represented their effort to make the worship of God as beautiful as it could be made. The idea of associating beauty with religion had not always been common, indeed in nearly all the early forms of religion the idea of the beautiful was more marked by its absence than its presence. This was very largely due to the fact that in the evolution of religion the goal to be aimed at was to obey God from fear of punishment, rather than to obey Him from a sense of appreciation. Even in the religious system of the Hebrews, know to history as the Hebrew Church, the chief aim of religion was to obey the commandments, and little else. With the advent of Christianity the movement of the race towards God reached its highest level, because it made duty to man, duty to God. Therefore the Christian claimed everything for his neighbour and not for himself. The Christian claimed all the best products of human intelligence for the benefit of his fellow. The Church had realised this in the centuries which had succeeded Jesus Christ; She had resuscitated architecture and made it a public art, instead of a private one; She had resuscitated painting, and by the paintings in the great churches had made the art for ever public; she practically re-discovered music and had made it a public possession. If all that the Church had done for architecture, for painting and for music, were eliminated from the history of these great schools of human achievement there would be desperately little remaining. It was therefore the duty of all intelligent Churchmen and Churchwomen to maintain the glorious tradition of the Church of Christ and make the building in which they worshipped God, and the music in which they offered their worship as beautiful as they could make it. Let it be by all means popular, but let it never go down to a popular level. Let it ever elevate popular taste. But this principle did not only apply to music. It also made it necessary for Christians and Church folk especially to do all they could to give opportunities to those who had not the advantages of the better placed, in seeing the beauties of nature to do so. There must be many who lived near Birmingham who knew what the Black Country was like. Ruskin had described the Black Country as “a county of cities built on ash heaps with a sky above them which was manufactured below.” It was intolerable to think what kind of education in beauty amid such surroundings could be afforded to the children of that district. How to remedy such a state of things was a difficult problem, but at all events the people of Kings Heath had an opportunity to do something in providing a beautiful park for those who succeeded them in that parish. It was impossible for any man or woman who believed in the union of the good and beautiful as a Christian ought to do, to oppose such a scheme. He had been amazed to find there were people in the district who were opposed to it. The only way to remedy the building of modern ugly cities was to take time by the forelock, and provide parks and open spaces while there was yet the opportunity. Had this policy been pursued in the Black Country three generations ago, it would not have been such a wilderness of ugliness as it was today.
29th July 1908 – Minute of KN&N UDC, and reported on
1 August 1908 – Birmingham News
In the absence of the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Councillor Moffat presented the following report of the Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee.
Your committee beg to report:-
6. Kings Heath Park
That a communication has been received from the Local Government Board asking for what purpose it is proposed to utilise the buildings in the proposed park at King’s Heath, and your Committee have instructed the clerk to inform the Board that it is proposed to utilise such buildings as living rooms for caretakers and gardener and as refreshment rooms.
8 August 1908 – Birmingham News
Adult School Band Contest and Flower Show – The first annual brass band contest and flower show, promoted by the Kings Heath Adult School Brass Band, was held on Tuesday in the grounds of Kings Heath House, it is hoped the future park for the district, which was lent by the kind permission of Major J.H. Cartland, J.P. The weather was beautifully fine, and there was a large attendance, certainly not less than 4,000, the event the first of its kind having aroused a great amount of interest. The High Street was lined with hundreds of people to witness the ten competing bands march to the show grounds.
26 September 1908 - Birmingham News
10 October 1908 - Birmingham News
Mr Councillor Shann presented the following report of the Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee:
Your Committee beg to report:
3. King’s Heath Park – opening
That they have requested Mr Councillor Coley to open the King’s Heath Park so soon as the conveyance of the same is completed.
28 November 1908 – Birmingham News
£100 a Year for Kings Heath House
The Buildings, Sites and General Purposes Sub-Committee reported that they had received and considered a communication from the Board of Education stating that, subject to arrangements being made for the adequate ventilation of the rooms and for the provision of suitable out office accommodation, the premises of the Kings Heath House may be approved for use as a temporary day school for girls and infant scholars. The sub-committee had been in communication with the Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee of the Council as to the use of the premises for day school purposes, and, subject to the approval of the Council, the committee is prepared to grant the Education Committee the use of Kings Heath House at a rental of £100 per annum. Plans showing the method of ventilating the rooms, and the proposals with regard to the out-office accommodation, had been prepared and submitted to the Board of Education for approval.
Mr. Shephard (chairman of the committee) thought the rent an exorbitant one, and particularly unjustified when it was remembered that the use of the house for school premises was used as a lever to help to get through the proposal to acquire the park, and further, that the committee had always treated the Council committees very well in regard to concessions. They had, for instance, let the Fire Brigades Committee have the use of the land for a fire station. £50 would have been a reasonable rent to ask.
It transpired, in reply to a question from Canon Barnard, that the committee pay £50 for the use of the Baptist Schools at Selly Park where there are 127 children being educated. At the Kings Heath premises it is proposed to accommodate 300.
The recommendation was approved.
1st December 1908 - Minute of KN&N UDC, Baths Sub- Committee
Mr. Shephard (chairman of the committee) thought the rent an exorbitant one, and particularly unjustified when it was remembered that the use of the house for school premises was used as a lever to help to get through the proposal to acquire the park, and further, that the committee had always treated the Council committees very well in regard to concessions. They had, for instance, let the Fire Brigades Committee have the use of the land for a fire station. £50 would have been a reasonable rent to ask.
It transpired, in reply to a question from Canon Barnard, that the committee pay £50 for the use of the Baptist Schools at Selly Park where there are 127 children being educated. At the Kings Heath premises it is proposed to accommodate 300.
The recommendation was approved.
Kings Heath Park
8 August 1908 – Birmingham News
Kings Norton and Northfield District
Kings Heath and Moseley
Adult School Band Contest and Flower Show – The first annual brass band contest and flower show, promoted by the Kings Heath Adult School Brass Band, was held on Tuesday in the grounds of Kings Heath House, it is hoped the future park for the district, which was lent by the kind permission of Major J.H. Cartland, J.P. The weather was beautifully fine, and there was a large attendance, certainly not less than 4,000, the event the first of its kind having aroused a great amount of interest. The High Street was lined with hundreds of people to witness the ten competing bands march to the show grounds.
(There then follows a detailed description of the event – with no further reference to the anticipated park status)
Local Government Board Sanctions Purchase
Much satisfaction will be felt that the Local Government Board approve of and sanction the purchase of Kings Heath House and grounds, for the purpose of a public Park, official notification to that effect having been received by the Kings Norton and Northfield Urban District Council. It will be remembered that at the recent enquiry strong opposition was made to the scheme, mainly by residents of the Selly Oak district. The proposed new Park is situate at the junction of Vicarage and Avenue Roads, is fifteen acres in extent, and possesses an ornamental lake. The purchase price is £11,500, of which £1,000 is taken to be the value of the house. For the latter sum the loan is made repayable in thirty years, but a term of sixty years is granted for the repayment of the remainder of the loan. It is not at all improbable that use may be made of the house to provide temporary school accommodation in Kings Heath, which is much needed at present.
£2,030 for Enlargement of Muntz Park
....................
Councillor Shann replied that the ward had but one park; the others were temporary playgrounds, which might be taken away from them. Objection did not come very well from a Moseley representative after the magnificent way in which the Council had backed them up in their work of securing the park at Kings Heath.
.......................
Councillor Shann formally announced the sanction of the Local Government Board to the Council borrowing the money for the purchase of the Kings Heath Park – a fact that already had been made public – and it was understood, as the result of the suggestion of Councillor Coley, that the public would be allowed to have access to the park at the earliest possible moment after title had been proved.
4th November 1908 – Minute of KN&N UDC, and reported on
7 November 1908 – Birmingham News
Your Committee beg to report:
3. King’s Heath Park – opening
That they have requested Mr Councillor Coley to open the King’s Heath Park so soon as the conveyance of the same is completed.
28 November 1908 – Birmingham News
Kings Norton Education Committee
£100 a Year for Kings Heath House
The Buildings, Sites and General Purposes Sub-Committee reported that they had received and considered a communication from the Board of Education stating that, subject to arrangements being made for the adequate ventilation of the rooms and for the provision of suitable out office accommodation, the premises of the Kings Heath House may be approved for use as a temporary day school for girls and infant scholars. The sub-committee had been in communication with the Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee of the Council as to the use of the premises for day school purposes, and, subject to the approval of the Council, the committee is prepared to grant the Education Committee the use of Kings Heath House at a rental of £100 per annum. Plans showing the method of ventilating the rooms, and the proposals with regard to the out-office accommodation, had been prepared and submitted to the Board of Education for approval.
Mr. Shephard (chairman of the committee) thought the rent an exorbitant one, and particularly unjustified when it was remembered that the use of the house for school premises was used as a lever to help to get through the proposal to acquire the park, and further, that the committee had always treated the Council committees very well in regard to concessions. They had, for instance, let the Fire Brigades Committee have the use of the land for a fire station. £50 would have been a reasonable rent to ask.
It transpired, in reply to a question from Canon Barnard, that the committee pay £50 for the use of the Baptist Schools at Selly Park where there are 127 children being educated. At the Kings Heath premises it is proposed to accommodate 300.
The recommendation was approved.
1st December 1908 - Minute of KN&N UDC, Baths Sub- Committee
28 November 1908 – Birmingham News
Kings Norton Education Committee
£100 a Year for Kings Heath House
The Buildings, Sites and General Purposes Sub-Committee reported that they had received and considered a communication from the Board of Education stating that, subject to arrangements being made for the adequate ventilation of the rooms and for the provision of suitable out office accommodation, the premises of the Kings Heath House may be approved for use as a temporary day school for girls and infant scholars. The sub-committee had been in communication with the Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee of the Council as to the use of the premises for day school purposes, and, subject to the approval of the Council, the committee is prepared to grant the Education Committee the use of Kings Heath House at a rental of £100 per annum. Plans showing the method of ventilating the rooms, and the proposals with regard to the out-office accommodation, had been prepared and submitted to the Board of Education for approval.
Mr. Shephard (chairman of the committee) thought the rent an exorbitant one, and particularly unjustified when it was remembered that the use of the house for school premises was used as a lever to help to get through the proposal to acquire the park, and further, that the committee had always treated the Council committees very well in regard to concessions. They had, for instance, let the Fire Brigades Committee have the use of the land for a fire station. £50 would have been a reasonable rent to ask.
It transpired, in reply to a question from Canon Barnard, that the committee pay £50 for the use of the Baptist Schools at Selly Park where there are 127 children being educated. At the Kings Heath premises it is proposed to accommodate 300.
The recommendation was approved.
Kings Heath Park
(a) Staff
The Sub Committee visited the King’s Heath Park and considered the question as to what staff would be required at that park. The Clerk reported that several applications for situations at the park had already been received.
Resolved:- That the consideration of the matter be deferred and that a meeting of the Sub-Committee be held on Monday the 7th December 1908 at 9 a.m. at the Stirchley Library for the purposes of considering the same.
(c) Position of bandstand
The Sub-Committee instructed the Surveyor as to the position in which to erect the bandstand.
(d) Miscellaneous
The Sub-Committee also considered as to the erection of a fence on the north western boundary of the land and the Surveyor was instructed to obtain particulars as to different kinds of fencing; and also to report as to cleaning out the lake.
1st December 1908 – Parks Department (Operations Card 55 A1)
Acquisition
On 1st December 1908, an area in Vicarage Road, Kings Heath, of 15 acres 2 r. 6 p. (i.e. 15.54 acres = 6.2888 hectares) including King’s Heath House, was purchased by the Kings Norton and Northfield U.D.C. from the Priory Estates Co. Ltd. for £11,000 and taken over by the Corporation on the extension of the City in 1911. The restrictive covenants ensured the land was used “For public park, recreation ground, or baths. Offensive trades restricted.” (Conveyance No. 563 dated 1st December 1908)
2nd December 1908 – Minute of KN&N UDC
Mr Councillor Shann presented the following report of the Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee:
Your Committee beg to report:-
4. King’s Heath Park
That they are making arrangements for the King’s Heath Park to be formally opened on Saturday, the 12th December, 1908.
19 December 1908 – Birmingham News
2nd December 1908 – Minute of KN&N UDC
Mr Councillor Shann presented the following report of the Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee:
Your Committee beg to report:-
4. King’s Heath Park
That they are making arrangements for the King’s Heath Park to be formally opened on Saturday, the 12th December, 1908.
5 December 1908 – Birmingham News
Kings Norton and Northfield Urban District Council
Cost of Kings Heath Park
The report of the Finance Committee was presented by Councillor Mason. It recommended that the sum of £24,850 be borrowed from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at 3¾ per cent. for the following purposes:- Kings Heath Park, £11,000; erection of schools at Raddle Barn Lane, Selly Oak, £11,000; school site at Selly Park, £2,850.
Councillor Coley specially drew attention to the cost of Kings Heath Park as various figures had been given in the papers, among the statements made, being one that it cost £12,500.
14th December 1908 – Birmingham Gazette and Express
14th December 1908 – Birmingham Gazette and Express
Kings Heath Park
Opening by Councillor
W. Coley
Ideal Grounds
After long and anxious waiting, the residents of King’s
Heath have received their park, and on Saturday afternoon, in the presence of a
large and representative gathering of councillors and ratepayers, the grounds
of what for many years has been known as King’s Heath House, were dedicated to
the public use. The park house and lodge
have been purchased for £11,000, or £4,000 less than the price originally asked
by the vendors. The grounds are
admirably adapted, and the gentleman who has occupied the mansion during recent
years has kept the flower beds and other ornamental features in such a good
state of preservation that it has not been necessary to incur much expenditure
in order to render the park suitable for public use. The mansion, which was formerly occupied by
the late Mr. John Cartland, is approached through an avenue of trees. There is a fine stretch of grass land, which
can be used for games, and it is proposed to lay out tennis courts and bowling greens. There is also a small pool, well-screened by
trees, and rhododendron beds. Some time
ago the suggestion was made that the mansion, which contains large and
commodious rooms, should be used as temporary public offices, but this did not
meet with the approval of the majority of the district councillors. For the present it is to be used for
educational purposes, in order to tide over the difficulty presented by the
increasing pressure on elementary school accommodation in the district, with
the result, it is hoped, that money will be saved. A proposal that some part of the mansion
should be reserved as a museum has not, apparently, met with much support.
Imposing procession
The formal opening ceremony was preceded by an imposing
procession through the streets of King’s Heath. The gate of the principal entrance to the park
is near the junction of the Vicarage and Avenue Roads. It was unlocked by Councillor W. Coley, who
used for the occasion a handsome gold souvenir key, presented by Councillor
George Shann (chairman of the Parks, Baths and Cemeteries Committee). A large crowd then entered the park and
assembled in front of the mansion. There
several speeches were made. Councillor
Shann, who presided, said the residents of King’s Heath had waited a long time
for their park. They had shown great
faith and hope, and he and his colleagues now rejoiced with them in the
realisation of that faith and hope.
The agreeable task of formally declaring that henceforth and
for ever the park was open for the free use and enjoyment of the public
devolved upon Councillor W. Coley, who, it was stated, had taken a heavy share
in the pioneering work. Before
performing the duty he gave an address.
Having reviewed the history of the scheme and described the principal
features of the park, he said it was proposed to provide music during the
summer months, and intimated that as the present arrangement of the park was so
beautiful and effective, it would be unnecessary to spend money upon further
ornamentation. With regard to the cost
of the park, he did not think the Council had paid a penny too much for
it. He was satisfied that the ratepayers
would not complain of the bill they would have to meet when he told them
the sum which would be required annually towards the repayment of the money borrowed
and to cover the maintenance and upkeep would increase the rates by a halfpenny
in the pound on the present assessable value.
A Great Health “Lung”
Councillor Brown said the park was only about half a mile from an elementary school
accommodating some 1,200 children, while the site of a proposed new school was
but a short distance away. It would be a
great health “lung” to the district.
There were now nine of these in the area controlled by the King’s Norton
and Northfield District Council. Seven
of these had been given to the public, the park which they were dedicating that
day being the second which had been purchased.
County Councillor Buller congratulated the people of King’s
Heath upon the acquisition of a beautiful park.
He said he sometimes felt very sorry that there should be friction between the authorities of Worcester and King’s
Norton, because it was not good for the public service. (Hear, hear)
The Chairman of the
District Council (Mr. Moffatt) also spoke.
He said it had been the policy of the Council to acquire as many open
spaces as possible for the benefit and use of the public. (Applause.)
After the park had
been declared open the National Anthem was sung and the crowd cheered heartily.
Kings Heath Park
Opening Ceremony
(This article is accompanied by a photograph of the Kings Heath House,
but its quality on the microfilm does not allow reproduction here.)
(This article is accompanied by a photograph of the Kings Heath House,
but its quality on the microfilm does not allow reproduction here.)
Kings Heath Park is no longer a dream of the future but a substantial living fact. After dreary years of talk and conjecture the residents have come at last into the possession of a public domain quite worthy of the district. The opening ceremony took place on Saturday last in the presence of a large and representative gathering, the inaugural performance being placed in the hands of Councillor William Coley, who from the inception of the scheme has taken a chief share of the work necessary to bring it to fruition. It is scarcely needful here to enter into any detailed description of the admirable features of what has for many generations been known as Kings Heath House and grounds, an estate desirable and suitable in every way for the public purpose to which it has been dedicated. Over fifteen acres of park land and beautifully laid out gardens, a wide stretch of turf suitable alike for many pastimes and children’s games, encompassed by a belt of fine trees, these and many other features make up an ideal park for the good and well being of the people at large.
It was thought fitting that an occasion so illustrious from a local point of view should not be lightly passed over and a procession through Kings Heath of the municipal authorities and the various institutions of the district was organised. The procession was marshalled in the railway station yard, Councillor A.E. Dawson, one of the local councillors, taking the duties of chief marshal. The procession moved off at 2.40 headed by the capital band of the Kings Heath Adult School, followed by the All Saints’ Company of the Church Lads’ Brigade, under the command of Lieutenant Chatwin. With them marched the company’s bugle band, and was followed by the field gun of the Selly Oak C.L.B.; afterwards came the Boys’ Life Brigade connected with the Kings Heath Baptist Church under the command of Captain K.J. Chapman. Then came the councillors and their wives, Councillors Coley and Moffat, the Chairman of the Council, with Mrs. and Miss Coley, riding in the leading carriage. The rear was brought up by the Kings Heath Fire Brigade under the command of Captain J. Arnold, with Lieutenants Ballard and Brown.
On arrival at the entrance of the Park Councillor Coley was met by Councillor George Shann, Chairman of the Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee of the District Council, who handed him a gold key presented by the members of the Council, with which Mr. Coley unlocked the gate, and the procession and a crowd of the general public entered.
The actual opening took place at the door of the house, and the Vicar of Kings Heath, the Rev. W.J. Roxburgh, commenced the proceedings with a short prayer of dedication and thanksgiving, after which the band played the National Anthem, the Union Jack was run up, and the little field gun fired a salute of blank cartridge.
Councillor Shann, who presided, said in the past the ratepayers of Kings Heath had shown a large amount of faith and hope, and although at times that capacity seemed somewhat strained, he believed they did trust the Council up to the very end, and now their faith and hope had been realised. He was pleased to be there to ask Councillor Coley to open the Park because the realisation of that faith had been in a very large measure due to the work he (Councillor Coley) had undertaken. (Hear, hear.) At times when very little seemed to be doing, most was being done, because these matters of public importance were not carried through in a minute or two, and very often ratepayers grudged delay which all the time was acting to their benefit. He was glad to be there not only as chairman of the committee but as a representative of Selly Oak West Ward, for they found that the councillors representing Kings Heath and Moseley Wards were by no means slow in helping forward the acquisition of parks and improvements in other parts of the district. (Hear, hear.). Therefore when at last a chance came to make some provision for the residents on the Kings Heath side of the district they at Selly Oak agreed to work in the same way for them. (Hear, hear.) In some parts of the district they had been able to get parks by gift and without cost. As yet they had not managed to do that in Kings Heath, but the chance was not altogether lost, because while the piece of land secured was admirably fitted for the purpose, there was some adjoining land that might be acquired with great advantage in addition to the land they had already got. At the same time they could not expect the District Council at present to undertake that further cost, and it might be a small matter after all to appeal to the public spirit of Moseley and Kings Heath, which undoubtedly represented the richest part of the district to give public subscriptions to secure the further piece of land. They had started at last in Kings Heath, and there were other matters under consideration of interest to that locality, and it was hoped in the next year or soon after to provide baths for them. (Applause.)
Councillor Coley commenced with an expression of thanks to his colleagues for the honour conferred on him by asking him to open the Park. He should retain the handsome key as a reminder of a pleasant public service performed for the district. It was some three years ago since he entered into conversation with some people at Kings Heath in regard to the acquisition of a public park for that immediate district. He brought the proposals before the Baths and Parks Committee, and it was accepted at once as a reasonable proposal. Ultimately the subject was referred to the Council, and he was glad to know that it met with but little opposition. He was deputed to enquire into the suitable sites between Moseley Church and Alcester Lane’s End. He closely examined every available site, but he was bound to confess there was no piece of land which could compare with that on which they were assembled in any degree for the purpose of a public park. (Hear, hear.) He had always been one of those who recognised the importance of having open spaces for the recreation and enjoyment of the people, and that was a sentiment which Mr. Shann had already told them was implanted in the minds of the councillors of the district. He was glad to say that on every solitary occasion when a proposal of the kind had been brought forward he had been able to support it conscientiously. The new park comprised altogether something like 15½ acres, and one had only to look around and see that it possessed some of the greatest essentials for that purpose. They had a large stretch of grass land, upon which active games could be played, and a very prettily situated and arranged pool. They proposed that not only should that stretch of land be used for the more active games, such as cricket and football, but that it should be used to a certain extent for lawn tennis, and he hoped a bowling green. (Hear, hear.) They were not unmindful of the advantages of music, and they would arrange, as in other parks, that concerts should be given during the summer. Many people objected to parks because a great part was cut up for flower beds, but the park was well supplied in that respect, and it was not necessary to add any more ornamental flower beds, and he might add that they had no intention of putting up boards with the inscription “Please keep off the grass”. (Laughter and hear, hear.) The park, as they were aware, cost something like £11,000. When he was negotiating for the purchase of a park that was the figure he thought they ought to pay, and he was glad to remind them that that was the figure which was fully verified by an expert valuer, whom they employed to value for the purposes of the public enquiry. He did not think they paid a penny too much for it, and he was satisfied that the ratepayers would not grumble at what they had to pay yearly to repay the money borrowed, because even if a reasonable sum had to be added for maintenance, and even if an extra sum had to be put on, it could not come to more than ½d. in the £ on the present assessment. What use the house would be put to remained to be seen, but he could assure the ratepayers that it would undoubtedly be put to some use, which would save their money, instead of having to provide buildings elsewhere. For the present it would be used for a school, in consequence of the want of accommodation for children in the schools of the district, so that at once they began to get something back towards the expenditure which had been incurred. He had received a letter from Councillor Hayes, who was absent through illness. Mr. Hayes desired him to say that though he was one of those who opposed the purchase of the park in the first instance, he was glad they had got it, and would loyally support anything reasonable required to make it more perfect still. (Hear, hear, and applause.) That was the sort of comradeship which was in existence on the Council, and he hoped that it would become more cemented as time went by. (Hear, hear.) He had the greatest possible pleasure in declaring the park open henceforward and for ever for the use and enjoyment of the public. (Loud applause.)
Councillor J.W. B. Brown proposed a vote of thanks to Mr. Coley, and ironically remarked that now they were going to be annexed by a bigger neighbour, they would not have to wait for 14 years for what they desired. There could be no doubt about the necessity of having an open space in that locality. It would be a good health lung to the district, and he congratulated them upon the fact. It was the ninth park or recreation ground in the district that they had opened, so that it could not be said that their district was altogether unequipped, and it was the second park only which they had to purchase. It had been stated to him, on the highest authority, that when the house was put in proper order and repair it might become a museum for fossilised councillors. (Loud laughter.)
County Councillor A.G. Buller, J.P., seconded, and said he felt sorry there should be friction between Worcester and Kings Norton – (hear, hear) – and he ventured to think that this friction was no good to the public service. (Hear, hear.) He heartily supported the scheme at the public enquiry, and he greatly rejoiced, as a large ratepayer, that the public had secured that beautiful property, (Applause.)
Councillor Moffat supported, and said that before they were annexed – Moseley had spoken, and the thing was done – (laughter) - the park had been opened in the district, thanks almost entirely to Councillor Shann, chairman of the Baths and Parks Committee, and Councillor Brown, who had been the chairman of the Council, as well as doing a lot of good work during the many years he had been on the Council. Personally, he trusted, that it would be possible to add to the park, for 15 acres was not large enough for a large and growing neighbourhood.
Councllor Coley having responded, Councillor Dawson proposed a vote of thanks to Councillor Shann for presiding, describing the park as one of the most beautiful pieces of freehold property in the district, and he was sure it would become one of the most popular parks in the whole of the district.
Councillor Whittaker seconded, believing that it would be a great boon to and would be largely used by the working classes.
Councillor Shann having responded, the Council and visitors adjourned to the house, where they partook of tea, by the kindness of Councillor and Mrs. Coley, the host and hostess. The tea was supplied by Mr. G.R. Bailey, High Street, Kings Heath.
Besides Councillor William Coley, who was accompanied by Mrs. Coley and Miss Coley, there were present Councillor Shann (chairman of the Baths, Parks and Cemeteries Committee, who acted as chairman of the proceedings on Saturday), who was accompanied by Mrs. Shann, Councillor Moffat (Chairman of the Council), Councillor and Mrs. Barnes, Councillor Bednall, Councillor and Mrs. Bishop, Councillor and Mrs. Bradbury, Councillor and Miss F. Brown, Councillor and Mrs. Bryan, Councillor Cocks, Councillor and Mrs. Dawson, Councillor and Mrs. Farrell, Councillor and Mrs. Fryer, Councillor and Mrs, Grant, Councillor Harbun, Councillor and Mrs. Kelley, Councillor and Mrs. Mason, Councillor Shephard, Councillor and Mrs. Watts, Councillor and Mrs. Whittaker, the Rev. W.J. and Mrs. Roxburgh, the Rev. James Collett, Major J. Howard Cartland, J.P., Mr. Edwin Docker (clerk to the Council), Mr. Ambrose, W. Cross (surveyor to the Council), Dr. Reginald Green (medical officer of health) and Mrs. Green, Mr. H.E. Swallow and Mr. A.E. Coley (assistant clerks), Mr. W.E. Ballard and Mr. H.F. Wallens (assistant surveyors), Mr. E.W. Washbourne (accountant to the Council), Mr. and Mrs. F.B. Andrews, Mr. and Mrs, A.H. Coley, County Councillor and Mrs. A.G. Bullen, County Councillor and Mrs. James Heaven, County Councillor J.S. Pritchard, County Councillor L.C. Tipper, Mr. and Mrs. W.H. Lord, Mr. and Mrs. Althans Blackwell, Mr. and Mrs. F.R. Silk, Mr. Richard Prescott, Mr. and Mrs. J.C. Burraston, Mr. and Mrs. J.F. Moores, Mr. and Mrs. G.H. Burton, Mr. A.J. Lyddon, Mr. and Mrs. G.T. Piggott, Mr. and Mrs. Alfred Biggs, Mr. and Mrs. W.H. Johnson, the Misses Johnson, Mr. and Mrs. F.J. Gibbs, Mr. and Mrs. A. Horton, Mr. and Mrs. Avon Gray, the Misses Gibson, Mr. T.E. Bladon, Mr. H. Coley, Mr. and Mrs. C.F. Jones, Mr. and Mrs. A Crowhurst, Miss Cornish, Mr. and Mrs. A.R. Collins, Mr. G.H. and Miss Hazlewood, Mr. and Mrs. H. Hazlewood, Mr. and Mrs. A. Rose, Mr. and Mrs. J.H. Griffin, Mr. and Mrs. F.H. Perris, Mr. and Mrs. Heritage, Mr. and Mrs. A.E. Bonham, Mr. and Mrs. W. Greenwood, Rev. W.G. Jeffrey.
26 December 1908 - Birmingham News
Kings Norton Education Committee
The Kings Heath School
The Buildings, Sites and General Purposes Sub-Committee reported that they had now received from the Board of Education official sanction for the use of Kings Heath House as a temporary day school. Arrangements were being made for tenders to be obtained for the alterations of the rooms, the erection of sanitary conveniences, and the supply of furniture for the equipment of the rooms for school purposes.
Councillor Shephard presented the report, which was approved, the committee approving a supplemental recommendation of the sub-committee for the acceptance of the tender of Mr. Cowan (Kings Heath) for altering Kings Heath House to adapt it for the purpose of a school. The amount of the tender was £88 12s. 6d. Mr. Dyson, of Kings Heath, tendered for supplying steel hopper ventilators for the premises for £8 14s. 6d., and this was also accepted.
