Home

Royal Park School – the council thinks it’s in Harehills !

“Vision for Leeds 2004 to 2020″ is a document produced by Leeds Initiative, a body which describes itself as “a public, private & community partnership for Leeds, led by the City Council”. According to their website, “The Vision for Leeds is a long-term strategy for the economic, social and environmental development of the city”.

On page 67 of the Vision it states :

Leeds is a unique city made up of very different places and communities, including rural areas, market towns, outlying areas and inner-city neighbourhoods. Every neighbourhood, village and town in Leeds needs its own identity and role.

This is very true. So why then on the same page is there a picture of Royal Park Road with the caption “A street in Harehills” ? The photograph with its caption reveal the above statement to be nothing more than another meaningless Leeds City Council platitude. It’s clear that to the people behind this document, one inner city area is pretty much the same as any other.

Another overwhelming vote to retain all three Leeds Girls High N6 Protected Playing Pitches

Tonight’s public meeting was attended by over a hundred people and culminated in an overwhelming vote in favour of a resolution to retain all three Leeds Girls’ High Protected Playing Pitches and for Leeds City Council to purchase them at playing pitch value (about £12,000). There were no votes against and only three abstentions. This result reaffirms the recommendation of the Community Planning Brief, produced in 2008 under the chairmanship of planning consultant Peter Baker, who now chairs Leeds Civic Trust, and makes clear that building on the N6 Protected Pitches is unacceptable.

The meeting had begun with a presentation from planning consultants employed by the school, Peter Torrible, Stuart Natkus and Sue Sparling. During this presentation, Ms Sparling repeatedly referred to the main school hall and main school wings (which the school would like to demolish) as later additions. It was pointed out from the audience that Ms Sparling was wrong to refer to these features as later additions. They were on the original plans approved by the council in March 1905; were toured by Queen Victoria’s daughter when she opened the main school building in 1906; and in 1907, a women’s rights crusader described the school hall as “the prettiest she had seen”.

Mr Torrible said that the school had already replaced the Headingley playing fields at Alwoodley, and that this was all that was required by PPG17.

Peter Baker disputed this and said PPG17 goes further than requiring the provision of replacement facilities for existing users. He said that in this area, the playing field provision isn’t up to standard, and where this is the case, PPG17 requires that local authorities improve that provision, procuring privately owned playing fields if necessary. He said that any replacement is inadequate if it isn’t in the vicinity.

Planning officer Tim Poupard said that Sport England were consulted on the school’s original proposal to establish replacement playing fields on Spen Lane and opposed it as being inadequate. He confirmed Sport England has been consulted on the school’s latest proposal which states that replacement playing fields already exist at Alwoodley, and a response is awaited.

Councillor John Illingworth addressed senior planning officer Paul Gough and said that Leeds is one of the worst cities in the country in terms of playing pitch provision, and Headingley is the second most deprived area in the city in this respect. Councillor Illingworth said that he’s a biochemist and knows that exercise is more effective than drugs for improving the health of people with heart disease and diabetes, conditions that are prevalent in South Headingley’s Asian community. Councillor Illingworth said he didn’t know why Mr Gough won’t protect the playing pitches as the law requires. He said we need playing pitches and we need them in this area.

Mr Torrible said that in return for planning permission to build on the main school site Protected Playing Pitch, the school would allow the public to use Ford House Garden. He added that provided the school was also subsequently given planning permission to build on the Chestnut Avenue Protected Playing Pitch, it would give Ford House Garden outright to the community for use as a public park.

Councillor Martin Hamilton said he welcomed the School’s offer of a new park, but said that it should be in addition to the playing fields – not a replacement. He said he didn’t think it was acceptable to build on any of the playing pitches on this site.

Martin Staniforth, chair of North Hyde Park Neighbourhood Association, said that developers very often end up building something entirely different to what was originally agreed, and asked what guarantee there was that this wouldn’t happen with the Leeds Girls High School site. There was no response.

MP Greg Mulholland said that what happens to this site is critically important to the local community and added that the school saying they’ll replace the playing fields at Alwoodley is unacceptable.

Anne White said she lives overlooking the playing field on Chestnut Avenue and can confirm that it’s been used unofficially by the community without the school’s permission for many years, and is still being used.

Darren Dixon said that from where he works, he sees the traffic congestion on Headingley Lane every day. He said that the filter bed development at West Park greatly added to the congestion, and should never have been allowed. He said that the school’s proposal would further add to the congestion and he added that the planning department should not be allowing additional habitations in an area that’s already congested.

In response to the planning consultants’ claim that car ownership on the site would be restricted, Alan Slomson asked in what sense two parking spaces per dwelling could be regarded as restricted car ownership.

A resident pointed out that if the playing fields get built on, all that will happen is that the new accommodation will be occupied by students, to add to the population imbalance in the area. In response, planning officer Tim Poupard said that covenants could be imposed which could prevent this. Mercia Southon said that there’s just such a covenant on the Rampart Road flats but the flats are full of students because the covenant is never enforced. She added that there hasn’t been a single example of a no student covenant being enforced in Leeds.

Tony Green asked Sue Sparling how many people and how many cars would be brought onto the main school site if the School’s proposal went ahead. Ms Sparling said she didn’t know. Tony asked if she could give him a rough idea. Ms Sparling said she was unable to.

When pressed by Greg Mulholland to agree to talks with the community, Mr Torrible said that there had already been eighteen months of talks where the community’s requirements had been at the centre of the table. He said that these had resulted in the current proposals which would now be going to a planning committee to which people could make representations. Under further pressure from Mr Mulholland, Mr Torrible said that the community now has a consultation period until early January. He said he’d be happy to work with a working party during that period. He said there has already been eighteen months of negotiations with the community and he’d be happy to sit down with a working party to discuss the result of these eighteen months of consultation.

During the course of the evening, ninety seven people signed a petition asking for all three playing fields to retain N6 Protected status, and for them to be bought by the council for the community at playing pitch price.

Also in attendance this evening were Councillor Judith Blake and Mr Asghar Khan. Mr Khan is Labour candidate for Headingley in the May 2010 local government elections.

After the meeting was over, David Hall remarked to me that when the Grammar School moved onto the green belt at Alwoodley, it’s as if it decided to take its green space with it.

What a joke !

It’s been announced in today’s Yorkshire Evening Post that the Grammar School at Leeds is offering to let the public use Ford House Garden for the next ten years. The offer is conditional on the school being given planning permission to build on the main school site Protected Playing Pitch. In 2007 we rejected an offer from the school to hand over Ford House Garden in perpetuity, so why on earth would they think that we’d accept a lesser offer now ?

The significance of the offer is that it shows that the school still thinks that it can bribe us into giving up our right under the UDP and PPG17 to have all the playing fields protected.

(photo courtesy of Bill Gracey)

Public meeting on the Leeds Girls High planning application – 7pm Monday 7.12.09 at City Church

The Grammar School at Leeds has now re-presented its planning applications for the Leeds Girls High site. These are practically the same as the ones rejected by the community a year ago, but with a few minor changes. The effect is still the same : building development on the Protected Playing Pitches (the pitches have Protected status in the city’s Unitary Development Plan because the adjacent area is considered severely deprived in terms of playing pitch provision).

A public meeting has been arranged to enable residents to air their views on the revised plans. It will be attended by several Leeds City Council planning officers, including senior planning officer Paul Gough. Also in attendance will be Peter Torrible, the planning consultant who obtained planning permission for the Grammar School at Leeds to extend onto the green belt at Alwoodley to accommodate the girls from Leeds Girls High School.

Here are the details of the meeting :

Time : 7pm
Date : Monday 7 December
Venue : City Church, Headingley Lane (opposite the Leeds Girls High main site)

City Church is an impressive Victorian buidling designed by Cuthbert Broderick, the architect responsible for the Corn Exchange and Town Hall. It’s located at the junction of Cumberland Road and Headingley Lane – see map.

Public meeting about the anti-social behaviour caused by residents of Devonshire Hall

A few weeks ago, a young man urinated in public on Cumberland Road. It happened early in the evening just a few feet away from me, well before you’d have thought someone his age would be the worse for drink. So when it was announced that there was to be a meeting to discuss anti-social behaviour in the Cumberland Road area, I decided to attend. The meeting took place in Devonshire Hall. Local residents described how student residents speed in their cars up Cumberland Road; how they shout to each other as they walk up and down the road at all hours; how they buy alcohol at the shops on Hyde Parker Corner and drink it as they walk back to the hall; how they run along the tops of residents’ car roofs, push over wheelie bins etc, etc. One lady described the distress she experiences when she hears female students screaming and worries that a girl might be under attack, although she realises (because it happens every night), that this is unlikely. Wardens from the hall explained that most of the trouble makers are known to them. They said that the first time a student transgresses, they’re spoken to. Then, for a subsequent transgression, they’re given a £50 fine. Amanda Jackson from the university’s community relations department said that the university takes the problem very seriously and replies to anyone making a complaint. I asked PC Carol Munsey why the police aren’t enforcing the Woodhouse Moor DPPO which covers Hyde Park Corner and extends up Headingley Lane. PC Munsey was let off having to reply as Councillor Monaghan said that the meeting wasn’t about Woodhouse Moor. The meeting ended with the Headingley councillors promising to look into installing more litter bins, lighting and mobile CCTV. The possibility was also mentioned of extending the DPPO. But what’s the good of extending something that the police can’t be bothered to enforce. Judging by tonight’s performance, things aren’t going to improve around here anytime soon.

The special relationship

This afternoon I went to the Civic Hall to a meeting of the city centre planning committee to object to the planning department’s handling of an item on the agenda – an application from Leeds University to build a massive warehouse-like building on the former Grammar School Protected Playing Pitch. The planning officer with responsibility for the application recommended approval of the application. I pointed out to the committee that planning officers are required to give a balanced view, one which takes into account comments from residents, but that the report recommending approval of the application had been completed prior to the deadline for receipt of comments, and before any objections had been received. I asked how the planning officer could possibly have reached a balanced view, when he’d arrived at his view well before the deadline for receipt of objections. The committee then gave its approval to the application. No one from the university spoke in favour of the application. But then they didn’t have to – the planning officer had said everything that was necessary.

The planning officer will have discussed this application many times with the university, whereas he has had no meetings with members of the public. The only opportunity for members of the public to express a view was when they submitted written comments, and in the brief three minutes when I was allowed to address the committee. For this report to have been prepared before the deadline for receipt of comments had expired, shows the planning department’s routine disregard for the wishes and needs of ordinary people and its special relationship with Leeds University – something which has been apparent ever since this council first agreed to to let the university build on the former Grammar School Protected Playing Pitch.

I wonder if what occurred today is legal.

(photos courtesy of moniqca and Matthew Everitt)

When a council acts against its own citizens

Leeds City Council closed Royal Park School five years ago. Since then, it’s allowed the school to be vandalised, and has done nothing to repair the resulting damage. Two weeks ago, local residents moved into the school to prevent further deterioration and to make repairs. Everyone in the area rallied round, including a local firm which offered free of charge, to replace lead that had been taken from the roof, provided the council returned it. But instead of giving back the lead, the council handed residents a summons to appear in court. And so, on Monday, residents were ordered to quit the building, which they did the next day. The council also asked for, and was awarded, costs against the residents.

The year that the council closed Royal Park School, 2004, was also the year that it produced a document called “Vision for Leeds 2004 to 2020″. How does the council reconcile its actions over Royal Park School with the promise on page 27 of this document to “involve local people in planning the future of their areas”.

And how does evicting residents from the school and asking for costs against them help to achieve any of these aims contained in the Leeds Strategic Plan :

• Increase the number of local people engaged in activities to meet community needs and improve the quality of life for local residents.
• Increase the number of local people that are empowered to have a greater voice and influence over local decision making and a greater role in public service delivery.
• Enable a robust and vibrant voluntary, community and faith sector to facilitate community activity and directly deliver services.
• Increase the sense of belonging and pride in local neighbourhoods that help to build cohesive communities.

Whilst it may be true that the “Vision for Leeds 2004 to 2020″ and the “Leeds Strategic Plan” aren’t worth the paper they’re written on, it’s also likely to be the case that producing the two documents cost more than it would have cost to give Royal Park School to the community.

(photos courtesy of Yorkshire Post Newspapers)

The Empire strikes back

Leeds City Council has allowed Royal Park School to lie empty for five years. During this time, they’ve allowed the building to fall into disrepair. Lead was stolen from the roof five months ago, and the council did nothing about it. But now that local people have intervened to save the building, Leeds City Council has moved swiftly to evict them. Legal papers have been served on the residents occupying the building requiring them to appear in court.

This isn’t just about Leeds City Council’s contempt for the people of Hyde Park and Woodhouse. If the residents who’ve taken action succeed in reclaiming and restoring the building, everybody will be able to see that the current Leeds City Council is redundant, and worse than that, an obstacle in the path of local democracy and progress. So we can be certain that the ruling coalition won’t rest until it’s done everything in its power to make the school derelict again.

For further information, please see the official Royal Park Community Consortium website.

(Photo courtesy of drgillybean)

Royal Park School jumble sale

I arrived at the school at midday, just minutes after the jumble sale had begun. Already the hall was busy with people browsing through piles of jumble. This amazing turnout at what for many people is lunchtime, shows how much this building means to local people, and how determined they are to save it. Whilst the punters browsed through piles of jumble, a small army of workmen and women worked tirelessly in the background, helping to restore the building so that it can once again become the centre of this closely knit community.

Watching all this activity, I thought about the disconnect that exists between Leeds City Council and the people of Hyde Park and Woodhouse. We pay our council tax like everyone else, but what do we get in return ? A local authority which ignores our wishes, sells off assets to developers at bargain basement prices, spends large sums of money on its own pet projects, whilst at the same time cutting services to local people.

This train of thought was ended by a friend telling me that I really must take a look at the cake stall. Laid out on a pink table cover was an array of the most delicious looking home-made cakes. People who come along here this afternoon, will be glad they did for more reasons than one.

Message from the school

The local community has taken over Royal Park School in order to repair it, and to protect it from further vandalism. They have issued the following statement :

Save Our School

Royal Park Primary School was closed in 2004 by Leeds City Council.

On its closure our community was promised that it would be retained as badly needed community space.

Then, Leeds City Council’s Asset Management took over an intact working building.

After many rejected bids from the community (some of them having considerable funding attached to them) Asset Management chose the private and highly professional company Rushbond PLC to convert the school into badly needed old age pensioners flats . . . opposite the busiest, noisiest public houses in an area of predominantly young transient population !

As with most of the council’s big ideas it was a ‘foolproof’, watertight’ plan that fell through eighteen months later.

After Royal Park Consortium (RPCC), discovered that Rushbond PLC had pulled out of the deal, RPCC again approached the Asset Management team and made another bid on behalf of the community to utilise the building, and again were rejected – on the ground that RPCC had no track record and no finances (unlike Rushbond PLC).

RPCC always intended that, once in possession of the building, we would start to apply for funding – the chicken and egg dilemma !

Leeds City Council were one of the first councils to sign up to the asset transfer scheme, headed by the government, to help communities to take responsibility for their own destinies. Leeds City Council have not yet allowed any assets to be transferred into public ownership and questions have been asked in the House of Commons.

It was pointed out many times in meetings with the Asset Management team, that the intact, well-maintained, water-tight roof was one of the many assets of the building.

Five months ago, lead was taken from the roof of the building, not stolen, but just left in heaps in the playground. Even though the police were called, and each road approaching the school is monitored by cameras, nobody has been arrested or questioned. (You have to have a mighty set of ladders to get up to the roof !). The lead was taken by the council and, by all accounts, lies in a yard somewhere !

Asset Management have spent between £10,000 and £15,000 per year on security for the building, as well as carrying insurance for public liability. On its own estimate, it would cost £1,200,000 (before the lead was taken from the roof) to rectify the damage caused during the time that Asset Management has had custody of the building.

When RPCC enquired when the roof would be fixed, they were told the matter was in hand and the damage would be made good. Yet here we are at the end of autumn, with the cold wet months of winter still to come, and the school still has no roof.

Would you let weather in through the roofs of one of your assets, why would Leeds City Council ?

The council says “The Mission of the Council is to bring the benefits of a prosperous,vibrant and attractive city to all the people of Leeds”

I’m sick and tired of my council
tax being wasted !

But are you ?

Do we stand buy and watch the iconic building at the centre of our community become derelict, pulled down and replaced with….a supermarket….more student flats ?

What should we do ? What can you do ?

You can help us in a number of ways :

1. You can become a member of RPCC by attending one of their meetings and joining up (phone Sue for further details on 07796 784 018)
2. You can help to repair the building – clean it and maintain its grounds – donate food or building materials (phone Royal Park Primary School on 07910 887 294)
3. Arrange to become a sleeping-in watch person – help maintain building security (phone Royal Park Primary School on 07910 887 294)

« Previous Entries / Home