Jackson's Oxford Journal/1893/Diversion of Hincksey footpath

PROPOSED DIVERSION OF THE HINCKSEY FOOTPATH.

On Friday evening a meeting of ratepayers was held at the school-room, Hincksey, to protest against the proposal of the Great Western Railway Company to divert the footpath between the reservoir and South Hinksey. The chair was taken by the Vicar (Rev. W. D. B. Curry), and there were about sixty persons present, including the two churchwardens (Messrs. J. Eldridge aud F. J. King), Alderman Downing, Councillors Salter, Margetts, C. Galpin, and Druce, Messrs. R, Davies, Railton, Smart, Hughes, Brain, &c.

The Vicar, in introducing the subject, said virtually the proposal of the Railway Company was to divert the old footpath from the first stream up to the farm, then across the mound between the two lakes, and round the front of the Vicarage. The matter had been before the City Council and discussed, with the result that that body had declined to sanction the scheme in its present form, and had distinctly thrown the proposal of the Company out. Still the question was in the air, what was its future aspect. This path had been in existence for a great number of years, and personally he was opposed to its diversion, unless something very beneficial to the ratepayers and residents in that district were given to take its place. Not only would the proposal, if carried into effect, deprive them of a right, but it would also considerably lengthen the distance between the two parishes, which was most undesirable. They had heard a great deal from people who did not live in the neighbourhood about the ugliness of the path, but he thought it was one of the most beautiful walks around Oxford, and for that reason, if for no other, he would not like to see it diverted. (Herr, hear.) Another reason which was urged in favour of removing the bridge across the lake was that it tended to the contamination of the water, but if that was so why had it not been removed before. Besides, that was a difficulty which could be easily overcome, while the lengthening the distance between the two Hinckseys was a most serious matter, and unless the Council could show them that they would have some bye road to connect Norrey’s-avenue he thought they would be justified in doing their level best to prevent the scheme of the Railway Company from being carried out. (Hear, heur.) He thought they ought also to consider the school children in South Hincksey, who had to come to school at New Hincksey, and to whom the proposed diversion would be a great inconvenience, because it might result in their having to build a school of their own, which would be strenuously opposed, he was sure, by the people living on tho other side of the lake.

Ald. Downing said with regard to the proposal being thrown out by the Council, that was not strictly correct, as the matter had been referred to the Improvements Committee, in order that the question of the diversion of the footpath might be fully considered and brought up again at some future meeting. It was true that some members of the Council favoured tho demolition of the old wooden bridge on the ground of contamination of the water, and had that reason been urged years ago it would doubtless have been worth considering, but now when they had filter beds he did not think the chances of contamination were nearly so great. The railway company did not contemplate, as some gentleman writing to the papers seemed to think, to construct a carriage road to South Hincksey, but simply to have a footbridge over the railway, then take a narrow path similar to the present one to the bridge crossing the Hinksey Stream, and there join the old footpath, which would mean a considerable lengthoning of the distance between the two parishes, and would, as the Vicar pointed out, be a great inconvenience to school children, as well as to people attending church on Sundays, or going from one village to the other on their way to Oxford. (Hear, hear.) The Water Works had had this aspect of the question under consideration, and had also recognised the fact that the proposed diversion of this footpath would deprive the citizens of Oxford of an extremely pretty walk acroas the fields to South Hincksey, whioh in the summer time was largely availed of. If they made a road through to connect the parishes it would cost from 8,000l. to 10,000l., an expenditure which he was sure the Council would not sanction, at any rate at the present time. (Applause.)

Councillor Druce said it behoved them as citizens and as ratepayers to take care that there was no chance of contamination of the water in the lake, in order that in case of any outbreak of disease they might be in a position to say they had done everything in their power to avoid it, and if a bridge could be constructed in the place proposed without increasing the distance between the two parishes, he was sure such a scheme would meet with every one’s approval. (Hear, hear.) He believed the Improvements Committee had an alternative scheme in contemplation to offer to the company, which would to some extent overcome the difficulties which were now in the way.

Mr. Railton, adverting to the subject of contamination observed that if some of them had seen what he had several times witnessed at the lakes, he had little doubt but that they would refuse to drink the water. As to the diversion of this footpath, he did not perceive that it would make much difference to people going to and from one parish to the other. He urged that if they could make any improvement in the vicinity of the lake, they should do so while they had the chance. (Hear, hear).

Mr. Davies said he thought they were pretty unanimous in the opinion that it was extremely desirable to have this bridge over the lake removed—(applause)—and by some give and take scheme he thought it was just possible the proposed diversion of the old footpath might be avoided.

Councillor Galpin was opposed to any scheme that would have the effect of diverting the footpath, and blocking up Lake-street, unless something better could be substituted, (Hear, hear). What he would like to see was a carriage drive from Norrey’a Avenue over to General Elliot's, but this could not be done, on account of its expense, for many years to come.

Ald. Downing said according to the proposal of the Great Western Railway Company, it was not in contemplation to close Lake-street, as there would still be access from it to South Hincksey. Of course if they could pass some resolution it would strengthen their hands in any future schemes that were brought up.

The Chairman did not see any reason why they should relieve the Railway Company of the duty which now rested upon them to provide a proper bridge, especially seeing they could if they felt inclined construct a bridge which would prevent any chance of contamination to the water below. (Hear, hear).

Mr. Curry then moved “That the ratepayers of the parish of South Hincksey in vestry assembled, protest against the proposed diversion of the ancient footpath leading from New Hincksey to the old village of South Hincksey, and pledge themselves to oppose such diversion by all the means in their power.”

Mr. Eldridge seconded, and said he was convinced if the proposal of the Company were sanctioned, it would have the effect of shutting up Lake-street.

Councillor Salter thought that too much had been made of this cry of contamination of the water. Personally, he was opposed to the diversion of the old footpath.

Mr. Smart thought it ought to be left to the railway company to carry out their own scheme. ("No, no")

The resolution was then put to the meeting and carried nem. con.

On the proposition of the Chairman, the following committee of ratepayers was appointed to carry out the above resolution, and to take such steps as they thought best for that purpose:—Messrs. Hughes, Brain, Eldridge, Railton, and the Vicar.

The Vestry terminated with a cordial vote of thanks to the Chairman.