Proposed Conisboro’ Park – Question of Right-of-Way.

September 1920

Mexborough & Swinton Times – Saturday 04 September 1920

Proposed Conisboro’ Park

Question of Right-of-Way.

Parish Council’s Controversy with Colliery Company.

A parish meeting, convened by the Conisboro’ Parish Council with the object of getting the approval of the ratepayers to application being made for a loan of £200 to purchase land for a park at New Conisboro’, was held at Conisboro’ on Wednesday. Coun. S. C. Urch, Chairman of the Parish, Council, presided, and outlined the proposed scheme.

The question of the provision of a park at New Conisboro’, he paid, was an old one, but it was re-introduced a year ago. The necessary land, which lay to the east of Loversall street, had been offered to the Parish Council for Right-of-way to the land had been applied for to the Denaby and Cadeby Main Collieries, Ltd., but had been refused.

The Parish Council had also been unsuccessful in obtaining compulsory powers for a right of way. The matter had now been taken out of the hands of the Parish Council by the Doncaster Rural Council, who had appointed a deputation to wait upon the Colliery Company with a view to a right-of-way being granted.

Coun. Appleyard said there was no place in the country where a park was more necessary than at New Conisboro’. The children, having no kind of a healthy resort, were compelled to play in the streets. Thus dangers were created. He, for one, dreaded to drive through the streets of Denaby. He did not think the Colliery Co. would be able to hold the Parish Council up in this matter. Public feeling would be so strong that they would have to give way. The gentlemen appointed by the Rural Council to approach the Colliery Co. felt very strongly on the matter, although none of them was connected with either Conisboro’ or Denaby. He advised the meeting to give the necessary authority for a loan being applied for. If the Council got the land they would find a way into it.

Mr. Harwell said it was a shame that the children of New Conisboro’ should not have a recreation ground. It was anything but right that they should have to spend their leisure hours among the houses and the refuse.

Coun. Bashforth said no one knew better than the Colliery Company the necessity for a park at New Conisboro’. He could not understand why they should take such a stand when it meant that the children of their own workpeople were being kept out of a healthy playing field. In reply to a question the Chairman referred to the letter written by the Colliery Company, in answer to the original application for a right of way. One of the reasons for the refusal contained in the following words of the letter:

“Before the Parish Council made application for an order constituting Conisboro’ and parts of the parishes of Denaby and Cadeby an Urban District, the Colliery Company contemplated making a recreation ground themselves without imposing any cost on the ratepayers.”

When first the question of a recreation ground was mooted in 1909 said the Chairman, there were on the Conisboro’ Parish Council six representatives of the Colliery Company. For all that, the scheme fell through. The Colliery Company opposed the Urban Powers scheme because it originated with the Labour Party. To refuse a right-of-way to a park because of this appeared to the chairman  to be a case of “visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children.” Coun. Haggar moved that that meeting grant the requisite permission for a loan being applied for forthwith. Coon. Hill seconded. The fact that the Colliery Co. said it had been their intention to provide a park proved to him that they considered a park necessary.

The resolution was carried unanimously.