The borough council’s planning committee has voted against the erection of a statue of a Cumbrian businessman at an historic abbey.
The move from councillors came despite the application for a tribute to Sir John Laing at Furness Abbey being recommended for approval.
Councillor Hazel Edwards expressed concerns the application could set a precedent and lead to a ‘Terracotta Army of statues’ being introduced at the site.
Reservations about the suitability of a statue of Sir John at the abbey were also expressed.
It was at the historic site in Barrow that the businessman, who was born in Carlisle, once prayed for his firm in times of trouble.
His company would thrive and Sir John, born in 1879, is said to have felt ‘forever indebted’ to the abbey.
Councillor Edwards said: “It’s a relatively unknown person with only tentative connections to Barrow.”
Councillor Colin Thomson, who was chairing the meeting, said: “He’s done nothing for the town, he wasn’t born here.”
But David Laing, grandson of Sir John, argued against this in a representation to the committee.
“He may not have been a resident of Barrow, but he was very much a man of the area, and he did work here, his men worked here and he brought work into the area,” he said.
Mr Laing said that, without Barrow, Coventry’s iconic cathedral, which his grandfather’s firm built, would not exist.
The bronze, life-sized sculpture of Sir John, positioned on a wooden bench, would be situated with its back to the railway line in an area to the north of the main abbey.
“We didn’t want it to be obvious or intrusive,” said his grandson.
“It doesn’t impact on the visible enjoyment of the abbey itself or the historical context.”
Bob Pointing, who owns Abbey Vale Lodge, situated close to the abbey, was critical of the design of the statue, which was sculpted by Jim Butler, who died earlier this year.
“I don’t think even his greatest fans would say this is his best work,” said Mr Pointing.
“It’s not good enough for Barrow and it’s not good enough for Furness Abbey.”
The committee felt the proposal did not contribute to the enhancement and historic interest of the area and was out of context with its location.
The application is to be brought before the July planning committee meeting accompanied by further advice from council officers, including draft reasons for refusal, should councillors maintain their opposition to it.
