Deputation Against the Hyde Park Road One Way Proposal

At this evening's meeting of INWAC, Tony Crooks (pictured above) gave the following speech on behalf of South Headingley Community Association :

Hyde Park Road is not a rat run as claimed by Highways. It is a through road and wide enough for two way traffic when not obstructed by double parked cars. According to Highways, the problem of double parking has led to cars meeting head on and having to reverse. Highways propose to deal with this problem not by using double yellow lines, but by closing a small section of the road to southbound traffic. Whilst this might solve the problem of cars meeting head on, it will cause several other far more serious problems.

  1. By making it difficult for shoppers to access Woodsley Road, the one way system will encourage many to do their shopping elsewhere. Recently £65,000 was spent on improvements to Woodsley Road in order to attract more shoppers. £40,000 was voted by INWAC in February 2008, with the remainder coming from ward councillors and Groundwork. Street lighting has been replaced, the road has been resurfaced and new paving, benches and planting have been installed. Residents-only parking permits and limited-time parking have been introduced to combat the problem of commuters leaving cars there. And this Christmas, for the first time ever, the road was illuminated by festive lights to brighten it up and attract more shoppers. Councillor Chastney is quoted as saying “We are very happy to be supporting this regeneration work. The concerns of the local residents have been listened to, so I’m sure this road will become the vibrant, modern and accessible shopping area they need.” All this money and hard work will have been wasted if the residents of Hyde Park, North Hyde Park and Headingley Hill are denied easy access to the shops on Woodsley Road, which is precisely what this scheme would do.
  2. The drivers of delivery vehicles and others seeking access to the shops on Woodsley Road will be forced to drive along the narrow residential streets adjacent to Hyde Park Road, many of them double parked by commuters. This will create a nightmare situation for the residents of these streets with increased noise and pollution, and an increased risk to the pedestrians and motorists using these streets.
  3. Those who currently double park on the stretch of Hyde Park Road to the south of the proposed one way section will very likely choose to double park on the stretch to the north, including the stretch adjacent to Woodhouse Moor, exacerbating the already bad problem of double parking on this part of the road. This proposal will effectively turn this part of the road into a car park for commuters, passable only by single lane traffic.

We therefore ask that you write, both as a group and individually, to the Chief Highways Officer, Gary Bartlett, and also to the member with responsibility for Highways, Councillor Richard Lewis, asking them to drop this scheme, and to replace it with a scheme to restrict parking to one side of the road only by the use of double yellow lines and enforcement.

Highways are claiming that their proposal will address speeding on Hyde Park Road when clearly making the road one way will do the opposite. In addition, they are claiming to have consulted the community, when our presence here this evening shows that there has been a clear failure of consultation. We therefore ask that you refer this proposal for Scrutiny so that all its failings can be examined and the appropriate lessons learnt.

Councillors were very supportive and agreed to write asking for the scheme to be scrapped and to ask for Scrutiny. But at the suggestion of Councillor Akhtar, they decided to delay taking any action until after a meeting had taken place the following Monday between Councillor Harper and Councillor Lewis (a meeting that was subsequently cancelled).

Residents cross about crossing

Kensington Court and roadworks intended to create a toucan crossing

The residents of Kensington Court on Hyde Park Road are up in arms about a toucan crossing that Highways propose constructing at the junction of Hyde Park Road and Brudenell Road. Residents only learnt about the proposal when construction work began shortly before Christmas. Concerned that he and his neighbours would be disturbed by beeping from the crossing, one of the residents contacted his ward councillor, who then secured a halt to the work. Residents are angry that Highways should be proceeding with a scheme which will have such a negative impact on their quality of life without even consulting them. Ward councillor Gerry Harper has also expressed concern that such a major scheme should have been given the go-ahead without ward councillors knowing anything about it. Nor were any of the local community groups consulted. Given that there has been no consultation whatsoever, it came as quite a shock to local residents when just before Christmas they read paragraph 3.2.1 of a report presented by Highways to Leeds City Council’s Executive Board dated 14 October 2009. In it, Highways claimed:

Initial consultation on the project proposals was undertaken during June 2009. Ward members and community groups were informed by letter which included the project leaflet and links to more detailed plans placed on the internet.

On the strength of this report, Highways were given approval to proceed with the scheme and awarded £1.5 million.

Highways intend that the toucan crossing will link the proposed Route 5 cycle track from Cookridge to the city centre to the existing section of cycle track on Woodhouse Moor. The purpose of Route 5 is to divert across Woodhouse Moor, all the cyclists who currently use the A660. According to figures contained in a Leeds Cycling Action Group cycle audit, this would mean that between 7.30 and 9.30am, there would be a cyclist using the toucan crossing every 30 seconds.

So if the scheme goes ahead, the residents of Kensington Court will have to wave goodbye to the prospect of ever again having a late lie-in. And that will be the least of their problems.

Highways plan will turn Hyde Park Road into a car park for commuters

On the 13th August 2009, councillors on the city centre plans panel approved a planning application from Leeds University to build a new law school on the former Grammar School site bordering Woodhouse Moor. The new building provides facilities for over 1000 students and staff and is located at the junction of Moorland Road and Belle Vue Road.

The university's new law school


Amazingly, councillors gave their approval to the proposal even though it was pointed out to them by a local resident that it would result in ten fewer on site parking spaces. Prior to making this application, the university had obtained planning permission to build on its car parks located off Clarendon Road. In giving approval to these planning applications, the Planning Department and councillors seemed unconcerned that the developments would lead to increased on street parking in the adjacent neighbourhood. The result is that many roads in Hyde Park are now double parked and reduced to single lane traffic.

Hyde Park Road has been particularly badly affected. Throughout the working week, it’s double parked for a considerable length to either side of its junction with Moorland Road, reducing it to one way operation.

Car heading north to junction with Moorland Rd


Car heading north from junction with Moorland Road


The obvious solution would be to place yellow lines along one side of Hyde Park Road. Instead, the Highways Department plan to create a short section of one way traffic at the junction of Hyde Park Road and Edwin Road, effectively making all of Hyde Park Road one way. This means that commuters will be able to double park for almost the entire length of Hyde Park Road. Highways will have effectively turned Hyde Park Road into a car park for commuters.

Map showing Highway's plan for Hyde Park Road


Highways claim to have consulted the local community, but all they did was place notices outside the newsagents at 148 Hyde Park Road, outside 138 Hyde Park Road, and at the junction of Hyde Park Road and Edwin Road, and leave them there for 4 weeks (Highways say the notices were put in place on 16 July 2009). In reality, the first the local community knew about the proposal was when a local resident complained at the Hyde Park and Woodhouse Forum on 13 January 2011 about double parking on Hyde Park Road. Had local people been consulted, they would have pointed out that:

  1. Hyde Park Road is the “through road” for local traffic between Hyde Park Corner and Kirkstall Road.
  2. If cars are stopped passing down the normal through road, they will simply take a longer route down other, less appropriate roads.
  3. The proposal will cause a lot of extra traffic in an already really congested area.

Local resident Janet Bailey is so fed up with Highways ignoring the views of local people when important decisions are being made that affect the community, that she wrote a letter to Yorkshire Evening Post to express her thoughts on the subject. Janet’s letter was published in the 25th January edition of the paper.

The decision to go ahead with the scheme was made on 16.2.10, and we’ve been told that work will commence in 2 to 4 weeks time.

This problem has been caused by the university being allowed to build on its car parks, and being allowed to build new teaching facilities without making any or adequate parking provision. Local residents should not have to suffer the consequences of the planning department’s mistakes by having their roads turned into car parks.

Meeting to discuss community use of the Chestnut Avenue sports facilities

From left to right: John Davison, Martin Oxley, Will Ryder and Sophie Michelena

Tonight’s meeting was arranged by Sphere, a non profit organization dedicated to the promotion of sport. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Sphere’s bid to be allowed to use the Chestnut Avenue sports facilities on behalf of the community. Speakers included Martin Oxley (Futsal Project Coordinator), John Davison (Futsal Community Coach and local resident), Will Ryder (Active Learning), and Sophie Michelena (Development Trust Association).

Martin Oxley I’ve met with School governor Ken Morton who was very receptive to what we’re proposing. Without planning permission, the value of the playing field is about £12,000. No one is maintaining the site. When we inspected the sports hall, we found 9 inches of water on the roof with leaves blocking the flow of water into the drainpipes. The swimming pool’s filtration system doesn’t work and would need to be replaced. Black mould is everywhere and there are issues with salmonella and legionnaires disease. Also because it was it was a single sex school, there are only single sex changing rooms.

Cllr Martin Hamilton The School will be waiting for the outcome of its appeals on the Main School and Rose Court sites before deciding on whether to submit planning applications to develop the Chestnut Avenue site. Meanwhile, a perfectly good building has been left empty. Why can’t the School allow the Community to use it, on at least a 6 month, 9 month lease? They have nothing to lose, and if anything, this will give them brownie points with the public.

Sophie Michelena So far, the School has not considered anything on a non commercial basis. But since the recession hit, “meanwhile leases” have been used to allow property that can’t be sold, to be used for community use. “Meanwhile leases” protect both properties and landowners.

Tony Green That’s a fantastic idea. Who will be responsible for insurance?

Sophie Michelena The group would pay insurance and local rates.

Amit Roy Leeds Girls High School has always had the best facilities in the city, but they have been behaving like locusts. We looked after them, respected them, but like locusts, when they leave, they gobble you up.

What will be here in the future? In a hundred, 200 years. Will there be any grass anywhere? We are blessed in this area in terms of the groups we have. The students leave a little bit of themselves behind.

Bill McKinnon Do we have an idea of the costs involved with the swimming pool, in terms of fixing it and running it?

Amit Roy These facilities are on the doorstep of the local schools. The savings they would make by using these facilities could be used to offset the cost.

Tony Crooks What about affixing solar panels to the roof to reduce costs? Some businesses are doing this, using the electricity, and selling the excess.

Sophie Michelena In the last few weeks, grants of up to £150,000 have been talked about for developing facilities and pitches for the use of sports. The full details have not yet been released.

Sue Buckle This area has some of the worst development in Leeds. It is more densely populated than Moss Side in Manchester and Tower Hamlets in London. The area needs the project and needs the pool.

Local schools would support this project. They have just 29% of the government recommended amount of playing playing pitch space.

Woodhouse Moor is the most intensely used area of green space in Leeds. Small groups play cricket, football, basketball, because there’s nowhere else for them to play. The community needs more green space. There is a real need for what you are proposing, including the swimming pool.

Will Ryder We are looking for partners We will be looking for declarations of interest from other groups…

Martin Oxley It would be a requirement for the groups involved to be active in the community in terms of giving something back, e.g working in the local schools.

Nigel Republica Internationale adult and ladies football club would be interested in using the pitches. They would provide an income stream. However it is the community that takes priority. We need to get local volunteers involved.

Man How does the community get involved?

Martin Oxley We make sure the community is involved by all the groups using the facilities doing a degree of community coaching in the area.

Lady 1 So that the facility is not overwhelmed by clubs from other areas, we should have people involved from the local community on the board of directors, i.e from the local schools, so people in the area have a voice on its direction.

Martin Oxley No one particular group would have control It is a quite open project.

Lady 2 Will there be open access to the sports pitches? i.e Will it be open for people to just turn up and play?

Martin Oxley There may be health and safety issues with that, either in principle or practice.

John Davison It would be good to have some open access for let’s say a father and son, or other people turning up to play. I don’t know how it would work in practice. The facilities may get messed up, with dog mess, broken glass etc.

Sophie Michelena Maybe we could have the fields or one of the fields with open access for one day a week?

Sue Buckle The Royal Park Community Consortium are totally behind you. We feel this would be good for the RPCC and good for HEART.

Martin Oxley We can do something really good that will be self sustainable. We will try to do what people want.