Methodology

Need has been assessed by :

1. Applying the percentage of people nationally within three age groups who were found by Sport England’s Active People Survey (APS3) to play tennis weekly over a 12 month period, to the number of local people within the same age groups.
2. Determining how many tennis courts these people need using the Lawn Tennis Association standard of one court for every 45 residents.

Headingley

Hyde Park and Woodhouse

Using the above methodology, it can be seen that Headingley requires 9 tennis courts and Hyde Park and Woodhouse requires 7. Since Headingley already has 2 courts (at St Chads) and Hyde Park and Woodhouse has 6 (on Woodhouse Moor), this means that there is a need for 8 additional courts. Consequently, the 7 courts on the Leeds Girls High site cannot be considered surplus to requirements.

An alternative method of calculating the need for additional courts would be to use the finding of The General Household Survey 2002 that 1.9% of people aged 16 and above had played tennis in the previous fours weeks. This equates to 459 people in Headingley and 370 people in Hyde Park and Woodhouse (based on 2001 census figures). Since the Lawn Tennis Association recommends the provision of one court for every 45 people who play tennis, this means that Headingley requires 10 courts and Hyde Park and Woodhouse requires 7. At the moment Headingley has just two courts (at St Chad’s), and Hyde Park and Woodhouse has 6 (on Woodhouse Moor). So, using this methodology, Headingley needs an additional 8 courts and Hyde Park and Woodhouse needs 1.

Given that it’s so easy to do a PPG17 study to determine our area’s need for tennis courts, one can’t help wonder why the Planning Department didn’t include one in the report they presented to the councillors of Plans Panel West on the 12th August 2010.

References

General Household Survey
Sport England’s Active People Survey 3 (2008/09)
2001 Census Figures
Assessing Needs and Opportunities: A Companion Guide to PPG17

( photo courtesy of The Suss-Man (live from Albany, GA) )

The reality is that the six tennis courts were poorly used because they were in a very bad state of repair as a result of many years of neglect. The above photograph shows the state they were in at March 2008.

When local people found out about the proposal to convert the courts to a MUGA, they expressed their opposition to councillors at a meeting of INWAC that took place on the 13th December 2007. In response, the councillors passed the following resolution :

That in respect of the multi use games area proposed close to Hyde Park Corner, North West Area Management be requested to seek clarification on the proposals, and to ensure that public consultation was carried out on any such proposal

Following the meeting, Lib Dem Councillor Penny Ewens was in touch with senior planning officer Paul Gough by telephone. Here’s an extract from an email he sent her immediately afterwards :

Further to our telephone conversation, I thought I would drop you a line to let you know my thoughts on the suggestion that the proposed MUGA should be subject to further public consultation. Basically my view is that further consultation is unnecessary and would delay what is a very worthwhile project on a site which is in need of upgrading….I think that if we start a debate on the principle of the development it could seriously embarrass the Council, mislead the local community and get us into a legal minefield. If we do not carry out this project, all it would take is one person to make a legal challenge and we would be in trouble….There is no need to prevaricate over this and, in my view, we should proceed to the implementation stage.

I hope this is helpful advice.

It really is rich for Mr Gough to use the conversion of tennis courts on Woodhouse Moor to a MUGA as justification for his claim that there’s no demand for tennis courts in our area, when he himself was instrumental in bringing about the said conversion against the wishes of local people.

References

INWAC minutes 13.12.07
Paul Gough’s email 29.2.08

In a report submitted to Plan Panel West on the 12th August 2010, Chief Planning Officer Phil Crabtree claimed that under plans submitted by the school, only later additions to the historic Main School Building would be demolished. And at the meeting of Plans Panel West that took place on the 12th August 2010, senior planning officer Tony Clegg made the same claim.

When Messrs Crabtree and Clegg say that all the historic Main School Building will be retained, they are merely repeating what they have been told by the School.

The above image reveals that the plans submitted by School include demolition of the School Hall and the wings to either side of it. If you click on the image, it will enlarge and you will be able to read the School’s claim that the School Hall is a later addition. The School Hall and the wings form part of the original building opened by Princess Louise in 1906. The School Hall was visited by suffragette Sophie Jex Blake in 1907 when she described it at the prettiest school hall she had ever seen. Below are two pictures of the School Hall.

Misinformation

Senior planning officer Tony Clegg told councillors that the applications would “preserve the best of the 1905 building with loss of the unattractive later additions.” The truth is that the applications would result in demolition of 50% of the original school building.

Whilst acknowledging that UDP policy N6(i) requires that replacement playing fields be located in the “same locality”, senior planning officer Paul Gough claimed that in the case of the School, “same locality” means anywhere in Leeds, since the catchment area of the School includes the whole of Leeds. But since the School’s catchment area also includes Harrogate, if Paul Gough’s interpretation of “same locality” is correct, it would mean that the Leeds UDP allows playing fields to be transferred to another city, which is clearly absurd.

Paul Gough said that it doesn’t matter if our area loses the tennis courts on the Headingley site, because the public has never had access to them, and because they’ve been replaced by tennis courts at Alwoodley, to which the public does have access. But according to the Grammar School at Leeds website, the only sports facilities at Alwoodley that are available to members of the public, are indoor sports facilities, and these do not include tennis courts. And the indoor sports facilities are available only on a for hire basis.

Omissions

Paragraph 10 of PPG17 states, “Developers will need to consult the local community and demonstrate that their proposals are widely supported by them”. Yet even though over 1,300 local people have objected to the School’s plans, planning officers didn’t mention paragraph 10 or the fact that it gives residents a right of veto on development on open space on the site.

UDP policy N6(ii) states, “Development of playing pitches will not be permitted unless there is no shortage of pitches in an area in relation to pitch demand locally.” That there’s a shortage of pitches in our area is demonstrated by the fact that the six schools within one mile of the Leeds Girls High site have just 29% of the playing pitch requirement of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 (SPRs). And yet planning officers made no mention of the SPRs. Neither did they mention the thousands of students who live in our area and who play football, rugby and tennis on our local park, because the university’s own facilities are several miles away at Weetwood and Bodington. And whilst acknowledging that the heads of five local schools have asked for all three playing fields to be acquired for the use of their pupils, senior planning officer Paul Gough sought to play down the importance of this clear evidence of demand for pitches in our area by saying that Education Leeds has concerns about the safety of pupils being transported to the Headingley site and the possibility that children could be injured by needles on the site.

Bribe

Paul Gough told councillors that if they approve the applications, the School will make Ford House Garden available to the public on a ten year lease. When councillors said they didn’t feel this was for long enough, the School’s representative said that if in the future, the council approves the School’s application to build on the Victoria Road Protected Playing Pitch, they can negotiate on Ford House Garden. Clearly the offer on Ford House Garden is a bribe designed to achieve planning permission on the Victoria Road Protected Playing Pitch. What Paul Gough failed to point out to councillors is that Ford House Garden is itself a Protected Playing Pitch, and therefore, not open to negotiation.

Threat

Chief Planning Officer Phil Crabtree told councillors that the School was considering taking legal action for non determination. What Mr Crabtree didn’t tell councillors was what he should have said to the School in response. Namely, that the reason for the delay has been the School’s failure to supply a satisfactory PPG17 audit, combined with his own department’s reluctance to proceed to panel without one.

———————-

Fortunately, the councillors of Plans Panel West could see what was going on and decided to defer making a decision until after they’d been supplied with a great deal more information.

Reference

Minutes of Meeting of Plans Panel West – 12.8.10
Minutes of Meeting of Plans Panel West – 12.8.10 (musical version)

The Unitary Development Plan gives N6 Protected status to the Leeds Girls High School playing fields out of recognition that Hyde Park and Headingley are deprived in terms of playing pitch provision. N6 status is given irrespective of who owns pitches, or whether the public has ever had access to them. Not only does the UDP protect these pitches from development, but via policy N3 it confers a duty on the local authority to acquire them for the community should the opportunity arise. Such an opportunity has arisen now. With the girls’ school having gone to Alwoodley, the way is clear for the Council to acquire the Protected Playing Pitches at the Headingley site. But instead of trying to protect the playing fields, so that they can be purchased for the use of local people, Leeds City Council’s planning department is recommending to the councillors of Plans Panel West that they give their approval to the applications to build on the playing fields.

I call on the councillors of Plans Panel West when they meet this Thursday, not to listen to the planning department, but instead, to stand up for the policies laid down in the UDP and in so doing, to stand up for the people of Hyde Park and Headingley. In this way, they will make it clear that it is our elected representatives who run this city, and not an unelected bureaucratic elite which apparently doesn’t even know the difference between a brownfield site and a greenfield site.

The council responded to these objections, considering that there was a gross deficiency in playing pitch provision, particularly in some inner city areas, including University Ward.

Policy N6  seeks to protect playing pitches from development unless particular exceptions apply.  The first of these (N6i) allows for overall pitch quality and provision to be upgraded though part development or relocation.  N6ii allows development if there is no shortage of pitches, locally, and city-wide, and the land is not required for additional greenspace.

Subsequent to these comments being made, a deal was done between the council and the university which allowed the university to build on the Protected Playing Pitch, in exchange for a cash payment of £255,000 intended to establish replacement facilities on Woodhouse Moor.

The Planning Department note acknowledges that development is only permissible if there is no shortage of pitches locally.  And yet, the result of the arrangement with university was that this area ended up with even less playing pitch provision than it had before. That there is currently a gross deficiency in playing pitch provision in this area is proven by the fact that none of the local schools comply with the School Premises Regulations 1999 in terms of playing pitch provision. In order to make these schools comply with the regulations, the council would have to acquire all three of the available Leeds Girls High Protected Playing Pitches. This could easily be done, for as Protected Playing Pitches, the land is worth no more than £15,000.

References

Note from Plans West dated 11 February 1998
The School Premises Regulations 1999

In this particular case, the site lies within a generally densely built-up area within which the retention of playing fields may be especially important. I can see no reason to remove this site from Policy N6, especially as the Grammar School has now been relocated at Alwoodley, so that an argument based on their particular needs will no longer apply.

I recommend that no modification be made to the UDP.

We have crystallized our vision around the concept of an “exemplar” building. It will be an exemplar building in terms of its ecological footprint, in terms of its ownership and management by the community and for the community, and in terms of its inclusivity – owned and used by the whole community and not just a particular part of it. It will provide a breathing space and a beating heart for the whole community.

How are we to achieve this? We have a funding team looking at seedcorn grants and longer term grants. We are gathering expressions of interest from social and commercial enterprises in the area, to calculate our potential rent income, and we are getting a lot of positive responses. Our consultants are performing a Social Return on Investment calculation. We are not a commercial concern but our project will bring great benefits to the area and this will be shown by the social return on investment calculation. We believe that we qualify for the Asset Transfer scheme. We know that in Leeds this scheme has had a slow start but we feel that some momentum is gathering. We note in the Executive Board minutes that the Bangladeshi Community Centre is to be offered a 50 year lease with a peppercorn rent and at less than best consideration. We want something similar to that.

The sticking point in all this is that the council’s terms are entirely commercial. We are not a commercial concern and so we seem to be constructively dismissed from the process. We ask that Leeds City Council rethink this.

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.

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.