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.

9 thoughts on “Another overwhelming vote to retain all three Leeds Girls High N6 Protected Playing Pitches”

  1. Paul Gough, of the Council’s planning department, was getting very hot under the collar as people tore into the school’s plans. “At the end of the day,” he said, “when was the last time Leeds had a new public park?!”, referring to the postage-stamp size piece of land the school are offering in lieu of building on tracts of playing pitch.

    As a professional planner, Mr Gough knows full well that government regulations say that where playing pitches are not extraneous, they can’t be built on unless they are replaced, inch for inch – which they can’t in Hyde Park, because there’s nowhere to put them.

    We pay his salary, but who exactly is he working for?

  2. Thanks a lot for writing such a detailed report of the meeting, very informative. Glad to hear how forthright and focused everyone was.

  3. I too am very grateful for Bill McKinnon’s speedy and detailed report of Monday’s meeting.

    I think the desired goal must be zoned in on with immediate and positive determination. The framework for the Working Party needs I feel,to be set up early, though remaining flexible to the end, so that the Working Party represents the very epitome of focussed minds.

    Is Mr. Torrible, alone, proposing to discuss with the Working Party?

  4. Thank you for the report. I hope the working party succeeds in keeping the playing fields for local use. Is there anything I can do-as I was unable to attend on Monday?

  5. Those who attended Monday’s meeting and maybe some who could not attend, are a disparate group of people, and some may have special skills and abilities which would make them invaluable members of a working party. How will they know to whom, and how, to register their interest?

  6. Kathleen – These are pertinent questions, to which I don’t have answers. Since the idea was Greg Mulholland’s, I suggest you forward your questions to him at info@gregmulholland.org My understanding from the meeting was that Mr Torrible intends conducting discussions alone.

  7. Una – Thanks for your message. The playing fields are safe at the moment and will remain so provided the working group remembers that they’re not negotiable. I’ll email you about what you can do to help.

  8. Looks like there’s nothing in the pipeline yet for Plans Panel West to re-examine the GSL proposals for the former LGHS site in Headingley Lane until at least 7th October. I’m wondering if the relatively recently elected Council members plus the more long-standing ones are beginning to realise that their public is an intelligent sector of our community, who depend upon their Councillors for straight talk and fair dealings.

    On a different matter altogether YEP, Friday 3.09.10 Page 12 bore ref. to Council Community Grants available now to local charities and community groups -Forms can be downloaded but must be in by Monday 7th September.

    Kathleen Mason

Leave a Reply