In yet another assault on Hyde Park and Woodhouse, the City Centre plans panel this afternoon gave it’s approval to a planning application from Leeds University to relocate the School of Law to a single site at the junction of Moorland Road and Belle Vue Road. It will mean the demolition of the buildings shown in the photograph, and their replacement with buildings that will be twice their height. Development in a conservation area should enhance the area but the replacement buildings will be large, unattractive, and being on a prominent corner, they will dominate the area. And with their flat roofs, they will stick out like a sore thumb amongst Victorian stone and brick buildings with pitched roofs.
The Law School has an annual intake of 250 undergraduates. In addition it has 150 postgraduates, 40 research students and 65 permanent staff. This means the new building will bring 1,005 new people and their cars into this quiet residential area. And yet amazingly, the proposal will result in ten fewer on site car parking spaces than at present.
Traffic will increase on Belle View Road due to the new car park entrance being relocated to Belle Vue Road. And the new entrance will also mean less street parking for residents. In addition, all the site’s rubbish will be collected from Belle Vue Road rather than from within the site. It’s very wrong that Leeds University and Leeds City Council expect local residents to bear the cost of this development in terms of increased traffic, parking congestion and obstruction.
As with almost every other development that will negatively impact this area, there were no objections to this application from our local councillors. It was left to Councillors Elizabeth Nash, Ted Hanley and Ruth Feldman to speak against it, and they were outvoted.
Over a year ago, Council and Leeds University staff held a series of closed-door meetings to discuss anti-social behaviour on Woodhouse Moor. Councillors Jamie Matthews and Penny Ewens were at those meetings; but although reps from the Students’ Union were present, no other community groups were represented.
It was then that the scheme for a barbecue area was conceived. In December, the Leeds University Community Rep., who knew that there was to be a series of consultation meetings three months before anybody else, was drawing up letters for students to sign and give to the Council. All other sections of the community, from neighbourhood associations to the Mosque, were in the dark.
Then in March 2009, posters went up on the Moor. A large colour photo showed people basking in the Elysian sunshine. “Do you want to barbecue on Woohouse Moor (Hyde Park)?” the poster asked, without explaining that answering “Yes” to that question would approve sinking forty huge concrete blocks into the oldest public park in Leeds.
This was the first that anybody except the Students’ Union, Council Officers, and University employees had heard of the plan. Two drop-in sessions were scheduled: one of them was in the Leeds University Students’ Union.
The form made available at these drop-ins was starkly simple. Again, the question was put, “Do you want a designated barbecue area on Woodhouse Moor Park?” You could answer “Yes” or “No”. Ongoing debate was terminated. You didn’t have to put your name and address on the forms – so people could fill in as many as they liked. The consultation had no deadline.
And 10,000 of these forms were, apparently, mailed out to all houses within an 800m perimeter of the Moor. Vast swathes of the catchment area didn’t receive one.
But fear not! The Council yesterday produced a report on the conduct of this dubious farrago. It insists that asking people to vote “Yes” or “No” to a proposal is not a referendum; it’s purpose was rather to “illicit the range and balance of views on this issue” and “gauge…the respective arguments”. They gauged the range of people’s views by asking them: yes or no?
And the delivery company contracted to deliver the forms, Distribution Business Services, are glowingly exonerated. Twenty households made a formal complaint that they had not received a form. In all but one case, DBS was able to confirm delivery. Though How they were able to confirm this, the report does not explain.
One form, alas, couldn’t be delivered due to obstructed access to the property; but this was subsequently rectified. Furthermore, says the report, DBS have ISO9001:2001 accreditation!
The people of Hyde Park and Woodhouse can breathe a sigh of relief. Everybody has received a form. The seventy people at a public meeting who claimed they hadn’t got one were obviously lying.
In January 2007, a deal was signed between Leeds City Council and Leeds University whereby in exchange for receiving £255,697, Leeds City Council agreed to construct two mini soccer pitches and a MUGA (multi use games area) on Woodhouse Moor. The person who engineered this deal was Robert Sladdin, Director of Estates at Leeds University. In addition to getting Leeds City Council to agree to build sports facilities on the Moor, as part of the deal Mr Sladdin got planning permission from the council to build on the former Grammar School Protected Playing Pitch.
Fresh from this triumph, on the 28th February 2008, Mr Sladdin gave a presentation of his University of Leeds Strategic Development Framework to a Leeds City Council planning committee. During the presentation, he revealed that he wants the university to take over the roundabout in front of the Parkinson Building. It seems that the roundabout is owned by Leeds City Council who have not been maintaining it, with the consequence that Leeds University has been obliged to carry out that task. Mr Sladdin said he wants to tarmac over the roundabout so that the area can be used as a dropping off point for coaches, taxis and private cars. He said that this would relieve the current congestion in the area.
For most of my lifetime the roundabout was well-maintained and laid out as a large flowerbed. From Spring to Autumn, it was a riot of colour. I used to admire it every day when I passed it. Ever since the university took it upon itself to maintain the roundabout, it’s been grassed over. The grass has many bare patches because so many people walk across it.
The Parkinson Building is probably the most impressive building in the city after the Town Hall. It was built using money given to the university by businessman and former student Frank Parkinson (1887-1946) That the people in charge of Leeds University should now want to convert the area in front of it into a vehicle dropping off point, raises questions about their fitness to be in charge of such an important part of their own and the city’s architectural heritage.
The likely outcome is that Leeds City Council will hand over yet more of our green space so that the university can tarmac it over. And you can bet that the council will grant planning permission for the project. How could they object ? This guardian of our heritage has itself been using the area in front of the Town Hall as a car park for the past 70 years.
And if Robert Sladdin feels obliged to maintain the roundabout because Leeds City Council won’t do it, I’m surprised he doesn’t feel a similar obligation to maintain Woodhouse Moor, given that it too is immediately adjacent to the university.
There was an article in today’s Yorkshire Evening Post about INWAC agreeing to give £20,000 to a £1million project to add hanging baskets and pocket parks to Woodhouse. The article doesn’t make clear if the £1million has definitely been allocated, or if it’s just an amount that’s aspired to. If it has been allocated, the money is probably section 106 money. Section 106 money is the legal bribe paid to the council by developers when it grants them planning permission to do things like knocking down Perseverance Mills so a student tower block could be built on the site, allowing building on school playing fields in the area, allowing a student development on Shay Street, and giving Leeds University planning permission to build on the former Grammar School Protected Playing Pitch. The article also states that Councillor Kabeer Hussain (Lib Dem, Hyde Park and Woodhouse) has agreed to give £10,000 from money that councillors are allowed to allocate towards projects in their ward.
Do our councillors not realise that hanging baskets do not make up for the loss of playing fields and historic buildings ? And do they really expect us to believe that the same people who were so enthusiastic about the proposal to build a pay and display car park three years ago on Woodhouse Moor, have suddenly turned over a new, green leaf ?
Barbeques are illegal in all the city’s parks. So if a designated barbeque area gets built on Woodhouse Moor, it will be the only place in Leeds where people can have a barbeque in a park without fear of being prosecuted. The inevitable consequence will be that the Woodhouse Moor Designated Barbeque Area will attract people from all over the city and beyond, just as the skatepark already attracts people from a very wide area. This will mean that our roads will become even more congested, and parking for residents will become ever more difficult. What consideration have Parks and Countryside given to this ? As much as you can see with your eyes shut.
I attended the recent INWAC Meeting on 2nd April, 09 and came away extremely disappointed by the way in which the meeting was conducted.There were a number of points that showed the behaviour of some INWAC Councillors to be unseemly.
1.The Chairman of the meeting, Councillor Monaghan, was curt to several members of the public when he forcibly prevented proper debate concerning BBQs on Woodhouse Moor in the Open Forum.If these meetings are intended to involve the public in the consultation process, then this one failed.Large numbers of the public attended the opening but walked out feeling disenfranchised because they were prevented from speaking.
2.At the last INWAC meeting, held in February, a considerable amount of time was given over to the Open Forum to discuss 4 different local matters; 3 of which had little or no impact on the majority of Inner North West residents.Yet at this meeting a time block was put on BBQ’s, an issue which has relevance to and an impact on far more people than for example, the BMX track!
3.Councillor Atha made clear and well argued points against the proposal to authorise BBQs and was shouted down in the brouhaha style used in parliamentary politics at Westminster.Points of order were flying about as political scores were being settled by Councillors and the public were left totally unclear about why Councillor Atha’s proposal was ousted.
4.Councillor Ewens stated that a public consultation exercise was in process about BBQs so debate at this meeting was unnecessary.The fact is that most local, permanent residents have been excluded from the ballot about BBQs due to the undemocratic methods used to illicit opinion.That point was clearly made by Martin Staniforth (Chair of NHPNA) and accepted b y Councillor Matthews.
5.Permanent residents, who will be paying for the designated BBQ pitches and for the clear-up operations from the BBQs /bonfires that will inevitably be lit elsewhere, have not been consulted effectively.Yet the transient population of students, none of whom pay Council Tax and many of whom are not on the electoral roll in Leeds, have been enabled to voice their views freely.Consequently the results of the ballot are likely to be skewed.
6.In terms of the balance of arguments, although Councillor Matthews was the only member to actually voice his support for authorising BBQs on the Moor, one was left thinking that he was backed by the other Lib-Dem Councillors.He seemed to be saying that it was easier to take the line of least resistance to the hooligans who wantonly despoil Woodhouse Moor with their bonfires by providing them a designated area.The Council seems to be able to enforce a BBQ ban in other Leeds parks to counter the potential of environmental damage caused by fire. Why is this park different and why should it not be offered the same protection against damage as those in more affluent areas such as Roundhay?
7.Finally, the acoustics in the Jubilee Room were poor and it was difficult to hear what was being said by many of the Councillors and officers.This could have been rectified had a public address system been used or more simply, each individual should stand up and turn to address the public in a clear voice.
Overall I was not left with a very favourable impression of the way in which some INWAC Councillors use their elected power to represent those of us who are permanent residents in the city, who pay their Council Tax and who exercise their vote because they are on the electoral register.
There was a beautiful rainbow over Little Woodhouse this morning. I wonder if it means there’ll be no more student tower blocks built here (a senior Leeds City Council planning officer has described these edifices as the architectural equivalent of McDonalds). If so, the timing is perfect, since an application was recently submitted (application 08/06992/OT) for another one. It’s to be 7 storeys high and situated on Westfield Road. Leeds City Council has an obligation to establish balanced communities, and yet in recent years has given approval for the construction of several such tower blocks in and on the borders of Little Woodhouse. The most recent to be given approval was Chris Ure’s application to build on the former RSPCA site. When the planning committee met to decide the application, a Conservative councillor from Rawdon said “If we must have students, we might as well have them all in one place” ! It’s worrying that the future of our area is being decided by such a prejudiced outsider.
