Guisborough: new dwelling houses built between 1854 and 1880.
WP Baker – Fortunate that these details are available.
1854 Walker’s Buildings (now Walker’s Row)
1861 Census 37 or 39 in row
1855 Union Street (Owner: Robert Walker. Also owner of Walker’s Buildings)
1856 West Row, Belmangate (Owner: Isaac Scarth)
1856 Moore’s Buildings, Belmangate (Owner: William Moore)
Lawrence says 4½” walls. 1861 Census 15 houses
1857 Cleveland Place, Belmangate (Owner: William Watson)
1857 Cleveland Street
1857 Child Street (offshoot of Cleveland Street)
? Hermann Howcroft
1857 Cross Street (offshoot of Cleveland Street)
10 houses 1861 Census
1874 Auckland Street (Adjacent to Workhouse)
1877 South Street
1877 George Street (off Cleveland Street)
1880 Bennison Street (near Auckland Street)
1875 Bolckow Street (Owners: Bolckow Vaughan and Co) Later styled Pease’s row.
Other small properties
1856 “Mill Garth” – Mill Street ? 50 houses in rate book.
1856 15 houses in Westgate owned by James Bird.
These may be the houses in Bird’s Yard and the 2 on the front.
(See Ord’s History of Cleveland p.225)
1877 Hewitt’s Buildings.
1856 According to the Rate Book there was a shop at the Toll Booth
Also there after 1870 ?
Robert Walker 1840 and 1849. Currier in Church street.
Owner of Walker’s Buildings and Union Street.
Not in 1872 Directory
Isaac Scarth 1840 and 1849. Tailor, Westgate.
Owner of West Row, Belmangate 1856.
1872 he’s in Market Place and I.S. Jnr., tailor Bow Street
Wm Moore Not in 1840 or 1849 Directory
Wm Watson Not in 1840 0r 1849 (many other Watsons)
1857 Owner, Cleveland Place, Belmangate
1872 “Mermaid”, Market Place
Hewitt’s Buildings 1877
Wm Th Hewitt (1872) Grocer, etc. Church Street.
Jas. Bird 1840, 1849 and 1872. Gent., Westgate
Ord mentions him as Relieving Officer for Union (£90)
Was he also Medical Officer?
1866 Bird’s Yard (Westgate)
From Rate Books
1854 Old Chapel Yard – 14 houses
1854 Stone Quarry, Highcliff (Wm Byers)
1854 Walker’s Buildings
1868 Albion Terrace – Robt Walker
1855 Cleveland Place, Belmangate
1858 Cross Street (off Cleveland Street)
1863 Foundry (Providence St)
1874 Auckland Street
1877 South Street (nr Thomson St)
1877 George Street (off Cleveland St – N end)
1877 Hewitt’s Buildings – back of Northgate NW
1867 Chaloner Terrace – Northgate E side opposite Quoit Club
1880 Bennison Street
1856 “Mill Garth” 50 houses
1856 Bird’s Yard (15 houses incl Westgate – James Bird.
1875 Bolckow street
1874 Chaloner Street – surely earlier than 1874. More likely after Railway commenced ?
19 houses in Patten Lane
Development Belmont Farm site
Evening Gazette Mon 28 Dec 1989
Star gazer Russell Grant has backed campaigners fighting to stop further house building in Guisborough.
Townsfolk are worried about plans to build on the 30 acre Belmont Farm site, sandwiched between Belmangate and the Whitby Lane estate.
Outline planning permission for the development is expected to be applied for next month.
Campaigner Mr Alan Mackuin of Rievaulx Way, Guisborough, said Russell Grant had telephoned him with a message of moral support against the development.
Support is also being given by the Council for the Protection of Rural England after Mr Mackuin contacted its president, film maker David Putnam.
“Russell has given us a morale booster although his main concern is protection of the old county boundaries. He said to contact him again if he can help.”
Meanwhile residents in the town are proposing to set up an association to ward off any plans to build on the site.
They argue that the town has developed enough and it will destroy a natural beauty spot and walkway.
Evening Gazette 15.2.88:
Residents fighting to stop more homes being built in Guisborough are today up in arms over dismissive comments by a local councillor. Cleveland County Councillor Dave Punshon, who represents the town, upset home owners on the Whitby Lane estate with suggestions that they cannot win their fight to stop a development on Belmont Farm. Tonight Guisborough Town Council has called a public meeting in Sunnyfield House, starting at 7.30, over the issue. Mr Frank Atkinson, for the residents said Councillor Punshon “was not representing the views of the people.” Councillor Punshon will not be at the meting.
Evening Gazette 17.2.1988:
Job-hungry Teesside needs the controversial estate being planned for Guisborough, it is claimed. And protestors against moves to develop 35 acres at Belmont Farm have been urged to get heir facts right. There is widespread public concern in the town that 300 homes are to be built on the site, putting an added strain on local resources and causing traffic chaos. But builders Leech Homes say they are proposing to build between 180 to 200 executive-style homes on the site. They claim the high quality houses which would currently cost up to £70,000 are needed to attract business men into Cleveland. The developer’s land planner Gerald Choat said in the past one of the problems of attracting business to Teesside had been the lack of executive homes. People often went to North Yorkshire to find the sort of environment they would enjoy. It would be one aspect of attractive jobs to Teesside. Leech Homes are applying to Langbaurgh Council’s planning committee for for outline permission to develop the site, currently owned by the Trustees of Gisborough Estate. The issue was expected to be discussed by planners tomorrow but chief planning officer Derek Maud said it will now be raised at a later date. “We are not in a position to put it before the committee as we are awaiting responses from the County Council and others,” he said. Mr Choat said Leech Homes had been in discussions with planning officers for more than nine months. He added that it would be a well landscaped development with low density housing. It would include three and-a-half acres of public open space. Mr Choat discounted any plans to use Butt Lane as an access which would come via Enfield Chase And, to a lesser extent, part way down Belmangate. A public meeting in Guisborough called upon planners to reject the proposal and fight a public inquiry if needed. Mr Choat said he was concerned that there was a lot of misinformation circulating about the proposals. Facts needed to be checked out by the protestors.
Evening Gazette 17/2/88
Block it! That is today’s clear message to Langbaurgh Council from hundreds of angry residents fighting to stave off yet another housing estate for Guisborough.
They gathered in force last night at a public meeting in Sunnyfield house called by the town council. Unanimously they agreed to call on Langbaurgh Council’s planning committee to reject outline planning permission for Leech Homes to build on 35 acres at Belmont Farm. The meeting heard that up to 300 homes could be built on the site. The planning committee meets on Thursday to consider the application and already Tory and Alliance councillors are joining forces in a bid to vote it out.
Last night’s meeting agreed the plans should be fought all the way, even if it meant going to a public inquiry. However, that could prove costly for Langbaurgh ratepapers. The borough council would have to pay compensation to the land owner if it won because the land is currently earmarked for house development in the Structure Plan. Langbaurgh has already asked Cleveland County Council to remove the land from the 1991 Structure Plan and a motion last night by resident Mr David Mitchell congratulated them on such a move. He added that the council must be urged to reject the plan “which in the light of their previous decision is patently ridiculous” as they have effectively agreed house building in Guisborough must stop. Councillor Charles Angel said when the original Structure Plan was drawn up in the seventies the town’s facilities were designed to cope with a population of about 10,000. Since then the population has doubled with new estates growing around the edge of he town. This new development would add a further 1,500 people, he said. There is concern that it would overburden leisure facilities and the schools which are already struggling to cope with the size of population. And it is feared it could cause traffic chaos on Belmangate, Whitby Lane and Enfield Chase. An action group was set up last night and meets in Sunnyfield House on Thursday evening after the planning committee has made its recommendation. Spurring them on is the battle cry from one resident who said: “This is own town—let’s keep it nice and keep it as it is now.” Cleveland County Councillor Duncan McReddie whose ward includes Belmont Farm, today urged residents to face reality.
Evening Gazette Mon 28 Dec 1989
Star gazer Russell Grant has backed campaigners fighting to stop further house building in Guisborough.
Townsfolk are worried about plans to build on the 30 acre Belmont Farm site, sandwiched between Belmangate and the Whitby Lane estate.
Outline planning permission for the development is expected to be applied for next month.
Campaigner Mr Alan Mackuin of Rievaulx Way, Guisborough, said Russell Grant had telephoned him with a message of moral support against the development.
Support is also being given by the Council for the Protection of Rural England after Mr Mackuin contacted its president, film maker David Putnam.
“Russell has given us a morale booster although his main concern is protection of the old county boundaries. He said to contact him again if he can help.”
Meanwhile residents in the town are proposing to set up an association to ward off any plans to build on the site.
They argue that the town has developed enough and it will destroy a natural beauty spot and walkway.
Evening Gazette 15.2.88:
Residents fighting to stop more homes being built in Guisborough are today up in arms over dismissive comments by a local councillor. Cleveland County Councillor Dave Punshon, who represents the town, upset home owners on the Whitby Lane estate with suggestions that they cannot win their fight to stop a development on Belmont Farm. Tonight Guisborough Town Council has called a public meeting in Sunnyfield House, starting at 7.30, over the issue. Mr Frank Atkinson, for the residents said Councillor Punshon “was not representing the views of the people.” Councillor Punshon will not be at the meting.
Evening Gazette 17.2.1988:
Job-hungry Teesside needs the controversial estate being planned for Guisborough, it is claimed. And protestors against moves to develop 35 acres at Belmont Farm have been urged to get heir facts right. There is widespread public concern in the town that 300 homes are to be built on the site, putting an added strain on local resources and causing traffic chaos. But builders Leech Homes say they are proposing to build between 180 to 200 executive-style homes on the site. They claim the high quality houses which would currently cost up to £70,000 are needed to attract business men into Cleveland. The developer’s land planner Gerald Choat said in the past one of the problems of attracting business to Teesside had been the lack of executive homes. People often went to North Yorkshire to find the sort of environment they would enjoy. It would be one aspect of attractive jobs to Teesside. Leech Homes are applying to Langbaurgh Council’s planning committee for for outline permission to develop the site, currently owned by the Trustees of Gisborough Estate. The issue was expected to be discussed by planners tomorrow but chief planning officer Derek Maud said it will now be raised at a later date. “We are not in a position to put it before the committee as we are awaiting responses from the County Council and others,” he said. Mr Choat said Leech Homes had been in discussions with planning officers for more than nine months. He added that it would be a well landscaped development with low density housing. It would include three and-a-half acres of public open space. Mr Choat discounted any plans to use Butt Lane as an access which would come via Enfield Chase And, to a lesser extent, part way down Belmangate. A public meeting in Guisborough called upon planners to reject the proposal and fight a public inquiry if needed. Mr Choat said he was concerned that there was a lot of misinformation circulating about the proposals. Facts needed to be checked out by the protestors.
Evening Gazette 17/2/88
Block it! That is today’s clear message to Langbaurgh Council from hundreds of angry residents fighting to stave off yet another housing estate for Guisborough.
They gathered in force last night at a public meeting in Sunnyfield house called by the town council. Unanimously they agreed to call on Langbaurgh Council’s planning committee to reject outline planning permission for Leech Homes to build on 35 acres at Belmont Farm. The meeting heard that up to 300 homes could be built on the site. The planning committee meets on Thursday to consider the application and already Tory and Alliance councillors are joining forces in a bid to vote it out.
Last night’s meeting agreed the plans should be fought all the way, even if it meant going to a public inquiry. However, that could prove costly for Langbaurgh ratepapers. The borough council would have to pay compensation to the land owner if it won because the land is currently earmarked for house development in the Structure Plan. Langbaurgh has already asked Cleveland County Council to remove the land from the 1991 Structure Plan and a motion last night by resident Mr David Mitchell congratulated them on such a move. He added that the council must be urged to reject the plan “which in the light of their previous decision is patently ridiculous” as they have effectively agreed house building in Guisborough must stop. Councillor Charles Angel said when the original Structure Plan was drawn up in the seventies the town’s facilities were designed to cope with a population of about 10,000. Since then the population has doubled with new estates growing around the edge of he town. This new development would add a further 1,500 people, he said. There is concern that it would overburden leisure facilities and the schools which are already struggling to cope with the size of population. And it is feared it could cause traffic chaos on Belmangate, Whitby Lane and Enfield Chase. An action group was set up last night and meets in Sunnyfield House on Thursday evening after the planning committee has made its recommendation. Spurring them on is the battle cry from one resident who said: “This is own town—let’s keep it nice and keep it as it is now.” Cleveland County Councillor Duncan McReddie whose ward includes Belmont Farm, today urged residents to face reality.
Development: Sewage fears
D&S Times 17 Dec 1988
Sewage fears hold up homes plan at Guisborough
Mounting concern in Guisborough that the town’s facilities are not keeping pace with its growth was highlighted by Langbaurgh planning committee on Wednesday.
Members were considering an application for housing development following the demolition of St Paulinus RC Church, its hall and presbytery in Park Lane.
The church authorities are acquiring a site for a new church at the junction of Rectory Lane and Enfield Chase.
The planning officer, Mr Peter Wilson, recommended approval despite town council concern that the development should be deferred until facilities were improved.. He said this reason was unlikely to stand up to appeal.
Coun Mrs Betty Bradley said people in Guisborough and Skelton were worried by evidence of inadequacy and possible overloading of the sewerage system. She said a recent independent report indicated considerable raw sewage pollution of he Guisborough Beck. This had been going on for several years.
“I’m not against the relocation of the church but we must surely take stock of the situation now,” she said. “We can’t keep on building without knowing if this old sewerage system has reached capacity. It’s now crunch time.”
Mr Wilson said that as part of the consideration of the Belmont Farm application involving 250 homes, the council had asked the Northumbrian water for its views. It had no objection as far as the sewerage system was concerned. “It accepts that it will have to improve the quality of the effluent discharge, particularly in view of recent government and EEC legislation, but it doesn’t accept that there is a capacity problem at the Guisborough works.
Coun Chris Abbott said the water Consumers’ panel had been advised that subject to cash availability, the NW work which would take the Guisborough sewage to the long sea outfall at Redcar was likely to go ahead, possibly by 1991, but that Langbaurgh should continue to press for it. He said NW claimed it had carried out two surveys of the beach at Saltburn and the becks and had come to conclusions which differed rom those of the independent survey.
The borough engineer, Mr Frank Horsley, said Guisborough beck was really a ditch for effluent which had been treated at the town’s works, d that the short outfall at Saltburn was the source of sewage getting on to the beach.
Coun Jack Dyball said that if there was pollution, then housing development at Guisborough should be halted. “We can’t take this lightly if we are getting pollution right the way down he coast,” he said.
It was agreed to defer a decision on the application for consultations with NW.
Workshop
A visit would be made to 131/135 Westgate where Crossley-Ferguson Ltd had applied to change a former joinery workshop to a builders’ and plumbers’ merchants, including trade and retail sales.
Mr Wilson said the firm claimed there would be a maximum of 100 vehicle movements a day with about 20% by the public. He said there had been a long-established use an there was no way of getting an alternative access without demolition of properties in Westgate. The applicant had outline plans for improving the site’s appearance and meeting other local objections.
Dwelling Houses built between 1854 and 1880
WP Baker, MA, Tutor WEA Classes in Guisborough, under Adult Education Centre, Leeds in the 1950s.
1854 Walker’s Buildings (Walker’s Row) Demolished 1975
1854 Union St. Owner Robt Walker.Also of above. ‘Union’=Workhouse=Union of Parishes
1856 West Row, Belmangate. Owner Isaac Scarth
1856 Moore’s Buildings, Belmangate. Owner Wm Moore.
(Walter Lawrence said 4½” walls) Demolished 19??
1857 Cleveland Place, Belmangate. Owner Wm Watson.
1857 Cleveland St, demolished 1978 (Rebuilding 1983) 1857 Cross St, an offshoot.
1874 Auckland St, adjacent to Workouse
1875 Bolckow St. (Bolckow Vaughan & Co – later styled Pease’s Row
1877 South St. 1877 George St. off Cleveland St. Demolished 19??
1880 Bennison St, near Auckland St
OTHER SMALL PROPERTIES
1856 “Mill Garth” ... Mill St? 50 houses in Rate Book
1856 15 houses in Westgate, owned by James Bird = Bird’s Yd and 2 on front. Demolished 19??
1877 Hewitt’s Buildings. 1872 Directory WT Hewitt, Grocer, Church St.
D&S Times 17 Dec 1988
Sewage fears hold up homes plan at Guisborough
Mounting concern in Guisborough that the town’s facilities are not keeping pace with its growth was highlighted by Langbaurgh planning committee on Wednesday.
Members were considering an application for housing development following the demolition of St Paulinus RC Church, its hall and presbytery in Park Lane.
The church authorities are acquiring a site for a new church at the junction of Rectory Lane and Enfield Chase.
The planning officer, Mr Peter Wilson, recommended approval despite town council concern that the development should be deferred until facilities were improved.. He said this reason was unlikely to stand up to appeal.
Coun Mrs Betty Bradley said people in Guisborough and Skelton were worried by evidence of inadequacy and possible overloading of the sewerage system. She said a recent independent report indicated considerable raw sewage pollution of he Guisborough Beck. This had been going on for several years.
“I’m not against the relocation of the church but we must surely take stock of the situation now,” she said. “We can’t keep on building without knowing if this old sewerage system has reached capacity. It’s now crunch time.”
Mr Wilson said that as part of the consideration of the Belmont Farm application involving 250 homes, the council had asked the Northumbrian water for its views. It had no objection as far as the sewerage system was concerned. “It accepts that it will have to improve the quality of the effluent discharge, particularly in view of recent government and EEC legislation, but it doesn’t accept that there is a capacity problem at the Guisborough works.
Coun Chris Abbott said the water Consumers’ panel had been advised that subject to cash availability, the NW work which would take the Guisborough sewage to the long sea outfall at Redcar was likely to go ahead, possibly by 1991, but that Langbaurgh should continue to press for it. He said NW claimed it had carried out two surveys of the beach at Saltburn and the becks and had come to conclusions which differed rom those of the independent survey.
The borough engineer, Mr Frank Horsley, said Guisborough beck was really a ditch for effluent which had been treated at the town’s works, d that the short outfall at Saltburn was the source of sewage getting on to the beach.
Coun Jack Dyball said that if there was pollution, then housing development at Guisborough should be halted. “We can’t take this lightly if we are getting pollution right the way down he coast,” he said.
It was agreed to defer a decision on the application for consultations with NW.
Workshop
A visit would be made to 131/135 Westgate where Crossley-Ferguson Ltd had applied to change a former joinery workshop to a builders’ and plumbers’ merchants, including trade and retail sales.
Mr Wilson said the firm claimed there would be a maximum of 100 vehicle movements a day with about 20% by the public. He said there had been a long-established use an there was no way of getting an alternative access without demolition of properties in Westgate. The applicant had outline plans for improving the site’s appearance and meeting other local objections.
Dwelling Houses built between 1854 and 1880
WP Baker, MA, Tutor WEA Classes in Guisborough, under Adult Education Centre, Leeds in the 1950s.
1854 Walker’s Buildings (Walker’s Row) Demolished 1975
1854 Union St. Owner Robt Walker.Also of above. ‘Union’=Workhouse=Union of Parishes
1856 West Row, Belmangate. Owner Isaac Scarth
1856 Moore’s Buildings, Belmangate. Owner Wm Moore.
(Walter Lawrence said 4½” walls) Demolished 19??
1857 Cleveland Place, Belmangate. Owner Wm Watson.
1857 Cleveland St, demolished 1978 (Rebuilding 1983) 1857 Cross St, an offshoot.
1874 Auckland St, adjacent to Workouse
1875 Bolckow St. (Bolckow Vaughan & Co – later styled Pease’s Row
1877 South St. 1877 George St. off Cleveland St. Demolished 19??
1880 Bennison St, near Auckland St
OTHER SMALL PROPERTIES
1856 “Mill Garth” ... Mill St? 50 houses in Rate Book
1856 15 houses in Westgate, owned by James Bird = Bird’s Yd and 2 on front. Demolished 19??
1877 Hewitt’s Buildings. 1872 Directory WT Hewitt, Grocer, Church St.
1873 Rate Book, Oct 1873, Item 417 Clev. Cty. Archives
Mermaid Yard (owner Watson Dixon), Occupiers:
Thomas Webb (house), Wm Pretty (house), Jno Baker (shop).
Hardy’s Yd, next to Black Swan – candle manufacturer – Daisy Armstrong remembers being taken there as a child to see candles made.
Poynter’s Yd. Richard Ord (currier) owner of 8 cottages there. His sister married a Poynter.
Robt Walker 1840 & 1849. Currier in Church St. (Walker’s Row & Union St) Not in 1872 Dir.
Isaac Scarth & I.S. Jnr. 1840 & 1849. Tailor, Westgate. Owner of West Row, Belmangate, 1856.
1872. He’s in Market Place, and Isaac Scarth Junior in Bow St.
Wm Moore Not in 1840 or 1849 Directory. 1856 Owner of Moore’s Bldgs. Not in 1872 Dir.
Wm Watson Not in 1840 or 1849 Dir. (Many other Watsons). 1857 owned Cleveland Pl, B/gate.
1872 ‘Mermaid’ Inn, Market Place. see above
Jas. Bird 1840/1849/1872 – Gentn Westgate. Ord mentions him as Relieving Officer for Union (£90 pa). Was he also Medical Officer? 1866 Bird’s Yard (Ord p 225)
Executive homes plan for Guisborough is thrown out
Darlington & Stockton Times Sat 23 April 1988
The controversial housing plan for Belmont Farm, was rejected at a special meeting of Langbaurgh planning committee on Thursday.
The decision to refuse the Leech Homes application to build up to 200 executive style houses on the 30-acre site was made in face of the recommendation of the council’s chief planning officer, Mr Derek Maude, who said on planning terms he could see no justification for refusal.
The overall proposal, he said, presented a very satisfactory development for the southern part of Guisborough.
He said the additional six acres required by the applicant, which was outside the structure plan, was to provide an acceptable main access by way of Enfield Chase.
Town council celebrates
Guisborough councillors celebrated their victory over the building of a controversial housing estate on Thursday.
A meeting of the town council heard Langbaurgh planning committee had voted unanimously against the Leech plans for the Belmont Farm area.
The town council was instrumental in launching the campaign against the development.
Councillors congratulated the action group for its work, but Coun. Pam Bosworth warned that this victory was only the first step.
She said Leech planned to appeal and said the town should stand firm.
She added: “If we succeed in this we will stop any new housing development in this town.”
Councillors decided to write to Leech and Lord Gisborough, who owns the land, asking them to give up the fight for the estate because of the amount of feeling against it.
They also agreed to write to Mr Richard Holt, MP for Langbaurgh.
The full committee met the applicants and objectors – Guisborough town council and representatives of the action group formed to fight the development.
The meeting then adjourned to the council chambers.
Mr Gerald Choat, lands director for Leech Homes, said it was a very attractive scheme which also recognised the shortage of high quality housing in the area which could help in the regeneration of Cleveland prosperity by attracting new companies.
He said there were no technical reasons to suggest that it would increase the traffic flow and Leech would be improving the footpaths and providing a three-acre recreation area within the development.
Coun. Charles Angel, vice-chairman of Guisborough town council, said the Belmangate carriageway would be inadequate as little had been done since it was a drovers’ road.
“This development just isn’t in the interests of the people of Guisborough,” he said.
“The traffic situation is already a nightmare.”
The action group chairman, Mr Peter Allen, said the town had altered greatly in the past ten years and facilities just couldn’t cope with this additional housing estate.
Coun. Arthur Taylor, moving a refusal, said he feared the price, particularly in landscape value and the safety of the people, was just too high.
“The impact of the development on the environmental quality of the area is unacceptable,” he said. “The facilities in the town haven’t even caught up yet with the population increase and the sewerage system would certainly be inadequate to cope with this increase.”
Coun. Beatrice Lythgow said it would be sacrilege to spoil one of the most beautiful sites in the area.
It is likely that Leech Homes will appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision.
“Guisborough as they see it in 2001.
Fewer housing developments, less traffic and more open spaces is how councillors would like to see Guisborough by the year 2001.
At a meeting of Guisborough Town Council last week councillors discussed the environmental section of the new Cleveland County Council structure plan which is being drawn up to plan the future of the county until the year 2001.
Coun. Ian Alexander said he was concerned that there were no green open spaces near Guisborough set aside in the plans to remain free from development.
It was also pointed out that there was no mention of the long-awaited town bypass in the plan, which would help to take a lot of traffic away from Guisborough and so enhance the environment.
Councillors decided to write to the county council and point out that they would like to see less housing development and a bypass to improve the environment of the town.”
D & S Times, 20 Dec. 1986
Gill Street: probably a Mays photograph. Sepia. Bolckow Street in the background.
great site any more to be posted.
ReplyDelete