Drinking water for Grewelthorpe
Up to the late 1890’s Grewelthorpe people had to rely on natural springs for their drinking water.
Dear Sir, In consideration of a resolution moved by the rural sanitary authority that a supply of water must be provided for the village of Grewelthorpe. The Councillors of the aforesaid Parish, at a meeting on the 7th inst. beg to be allowed to make petition to your Lordship for a supply from a spring at The Hutts.Hoping your Lordship will give us a favourable reply seeing we are unable to fund any other likely source attainable.We are my Lord, Yours faithfully,Thomas Richmond, Chairman of the Council.NB From the Spring by the side of the 3rd gate from Hutts Lane Top adjoining the lawn tennis ground. A reply was soon received from Frank Gott the agent for the Bishop of Truro, 3 East Parade, Leeds.
Jan. 10th 1895. Dear Sir, Re. Water Supply I am obliged for yours of the 7th inst.The Spring you allude to is a valuable one for the purpose of water supply to The Hutts in a dry Summer as that of 1893 when it was our only source of good drinking water. Moreover I should not have thought it a large enough Spring to supply Grewelthorpe. Have you carefully considered the question as to its being of sufficient capacity for your water supply.Nothing but a good offer from Grewelthorpe could tempt us to part with a Spring whose supply can be of such value to us.Hoping that you may be able to obtain a supply from a less costly source. I am your faithfully, Frank Gott.Reply from the Parish Council dated 22nd January 1895
Dear Sir, Re Grewelthorpe Water Supply. I am directed by the Council of Grewelthorpe to say they are not in a position to give more than £3 per year, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, for a term of 99 years, seeing the combined source for Kirkby and Grewelthorpe was £6 a year this being £3 for each township, the water committee for Grewelthorpe objected to be joined with Kirkby Malzeard on the grounds of there being some doubt of the source being sufficient for the two townships. In this way the Local Government Board allowed the matter to stand over for 3 months so that we might find a sufficient and separate supply but not at an extra cost. Therefore you will see that the Council is not in a position to give a great price for the source not only as at the present moment the rural depression and scarcity of work for the Cottagers, they have more than enough to do to pay their Cottage rents and local rates.The water supply being chiefly for the Cottagers, seeing at the moment most of them have to pay an annual fee for their supply from a private source.Therefore the Council hope that you will take a very lenient view of this matter seeing the expense of the excavation and piping will fall heavy enough upon the Tenantry and ratepayers especially in these very trying times. Hoping you will give the Council a favourable reply. Yours faithfully, J.Leathley [Clerk to the Council] N.B.Population in village of Kirkby Malzeard – 500. Population in Grewelthorpe 250.This heartfelt plea did not touch the heart strings of the faraway Bishop of Truro and his agent Mr Gott soon replied:-
Dear Sir, Re. Grewelthorpe Water Supply. We are obliged for yours of the 22nd inst. but regret that we cannot recommend the Bishop to lessen his water supply for such a small sum per annum. Viz £3-0-0. Yours faithfully, F.Gott.At a meeting of the Parish Council on 4th Feb. 1895 it was resolved to write to the Bishop again but unfortunately we have no copy of the letter or the reply. In Feb 1895 the District Council gave the Parish Council 3 months to find a supply. Mr. Peter Lofthouse went to the District Council meeting in Ripon and told them that they were very hopeful of finding a supply within the time. At the Parish Council meeting on 27th February 1895 The Chairman Mr. Thomas Richmond vacated the chair in favour of the Vice Chairman, Mr. William Metcalfe, and made the Council the following offer. a supply of water not to exceed such a quantity as could be supplied by a pipe of the internal diameter of 2” from the Spring in the paddock behind Bramley Cottage, on a lease for 99 years at an annual rent of £10 , the water to be conveyed on to the road behind the piggeries in the paddock, the sanction of the tenant being first obtained and that compensation be made to the owner and tenants for surface and other damages at all times. After much discussion it was proposed by Mr. James Bulmer, seconded by Mr. James Coldbeck and carried, Mr. Hutton abstained, that Mr Richmond’s offer be accepted except that the rent be £9 per year, to which Mr. Richmond consented. The tank not to exceed five feet square, that Messrs. Calvert & Son communicate with the Local Government Board & Mr. Highley, and at once prepare a draft lease. If the engineers require the tank of a larger size then the rent would be £10 per annum. However one month after this meeting the above offer was rescinded because the Proprietor of Bramley Cottage had made such alterations to the agreement that the Parish Council would not agree to it. An offer was then made by Mrs. Thomas Richmond and her sisters, of water from a Spring at Spring House, Hutts Lane. This was agreed to and it was called the Spring House Water Scheme. Spring House. Hutts Lane.
Dear Sir, In answer to your letter to the above PC re Harrogate Water Act 1901. I am instructed by them to say that three of the landowners at Carlsmoor have made complaints as to the scarcity of water which they consider has been caused by the cutting made by Harrogate Corporation Waterworks, as the Springs have not been known to fail before now.It was proposed by Mr. J. Crabtree and seconded by Mr. W. Thompson and carried that the Harrogate Corporation be asked to leave a supply of water free of cost to the persons aggrieved thereby.The landowners referred to are:- Mr. Thomas Richmond, Mr. W.Umpleby & Mr. Leonard Burrill.All the water problems seemed to take a backseat in the village for the duration of the war. In August 1919 the village pond was almost dry and it was thought desirable that something be done to clean out the sediment. The clerk wrote to the District Council to ask whose duty it was to clean out the pond. The District Council replied that the Parish Council alone was responsible.The PC said that they did not agree. They stated that on previous occasions the RRDC had cleaned out part of the pond, they had reduced the area and lowered the water by draining which no doubt had caused the threatened nuisance now, also that surface water from the village street washed a deal of sand and mud into to pond and caused it to silt up.
Dear Madam. The complaints would appear to be due to 2 different causes, firstly, brown staining which seems to be due to discolouration of the Spring Water, and secondly, furring up in kettles which is due to the use of harder borehole water.I have arranged frequent washing out of the mains in order to remove discolouration. In regard to this it is the Boards intention to ultimately discontinue the Spring supply, which is subject to contamination, and increase the quantity taken from the Kirkby Malzeard borehole. This however will give rise to the deposition of scale under certain heating conditions. There are several commercial products which are available for the removal of scale due to hard water.The meeting raised many complaints from residents. Quite often the water has an objectionable smell. It is distasteful and people are afraid to drink it. At times dirt can be seen in the water. Often the water is brown in colour and washbasins, baths and toilet basins are stained. Domestos does not remove the stains and the glazed surfaces are being damaged. Heating elements in electric kettles become badly encrusted which makes them less efficient and also noisy. The insides of kettles become coated with a grey slimy substance and they look objectionable. The boiling water becomes milky in colour and questions have arisen as to whether it is harmful. Far greater quantities of washing powder have now to be used and even then the wash results are not satisfactory. New articles in the wash have become stained and badly marked.# The water is unsuitable for steam irons. It is thought that damage is being done to boilers and heating systems.Councillor Richmond said that Grewelthorpe water came from three sources. The Kirkby Malzeard borehole, Bramley and Kexmoor. Reference was repeatedly made to the good quality of Bramley water.The Water Board assured the village that the supply would improve when the Kexmoor pipeline was completed. It was resolved that the Claro Water Board be informed of the views of Grewelthorpe people. A letter was sent pointing out that Residents are gravely concerned about the deterioration of the village water supply. They do not believe that any customer of the Water Board can reasonable be expected to accept and pay for the poor quality water now supplied, and continue with the inconveniences which have arisen. They are very strongly of the view that immediate steps should be taken by the Water Board to improve the village water supply.Sir Charles Dalton of The Hutts suggested a member of the Water Board be asked to attend the next Parish Council meeting.12th November 1969. A reply received from Mr. Pooley of the Water Board. He said that exhaustive tests were being carried out in the area and were not yet completed. He hoped to attend the next PC meeting. Public Village Meeting held in February 1970 to discuss the water problem. Present. 3 Parish Councillors, 15 ratepayers and 2 representatives from Claro Water Board. The list of complaints from November 1969 was repeated and those present said that nothing had changed.The main points that came to light in the question & answer period were:- In the Boards view the changes made to the water supply were necessary because the Bramley supply was proving to be inadequate. Analytical tests had revealed that the Bramley water was slightly contaminated and was below the desired standard. That the Kirkby Malzeard borehole water was of better quality than the Bramley water.# That whilst the borehole water was hard water and caused kettles to fur up it was in no way detrimental from a health point of view and could in fact be overcome by the use of one of the commercial aids.# That analysis of the 6 samples taken from householders in the village had not led to the discovery of anything harmful or anything that would cause the discolouration complained of. That to continue with the Bramley water would necessitate the use of chlorine and this would probably cause further complaints from the users. That as to whether use could be made of the surplus Spring water was a matter to be raised with the Water Board. That the Boards investigations were continuing and that samples of distasteful water and discoloured water would be welcomed for testing purposes. That with the full supply coming from the Borehole it was difficult to say why and how the discolouration occurred, but pipe testing would continue to try and resolve the problem. It was unanimously resolved that. The Claro Water Board be thanked for attending the meeting and for their work in trying to improve the supply. That the attention of CWB again be drawn to the list of complaints in the hope that they will not relax in their efforts to improve the water supply. In order to assist the Board, samples of water will be obtained as and when they show discolouration or dirt or smell or distaste.Things did not immediately improve in March 1970 it was noted that villagers were bringing water into the village from away, the Claro Water board men working in the village brought water for tea with them and the Bramley children were bringing drinking water to school in bottles.Whilst it was appreciated that the Water Board men were working hard to improve the supply they seemed to be making little headway.The water had a foul and unusual smell and was distasteful, sand and dirt had got into hot water systems and discolouration was still evident. It was agreed to seek the aid of the press and TV and use every pressure available to remedy the situation.