HYDE PARK AND WOODHOUSE ONLINE

A planning application 16/02991/FU has been submitted to replace a building containing 38 student beds with a building containing 42 student beds and 9 professional beds, a total of 51 beds. The building to be demolished is the former Park Hotel at 82 Hyde Park Road.

The three following images show that the proposed building is more massive than the building it would replace, and also that it is the same height as the building higher up the hill on the other side of Hyde Park Road.

ooooooo

ooooooo

The following two images show that whereas the existing building occupies half the site, the proposed buildings would occupy the entire site.

ooooooo

ooooooo

Reasons why this planning application should be refused are as follows:

1. The development is an over over-intensive use of the site by virtue of the building’s height and the fact it occupies all of a very small site going right up to the pavement’s edge.
2. The development does not reflect the topography of the land i.e. the height of the building does not respect the principle of “stepping down the hill” (page 42 of Neighbourhoods for Living,¹ December 2003).
3. At present, taxis can pull into the car park. As the proposal requires that the car park should be built on, there would be nowhere for taxis to pull in. So they would have to park on Hyde Park Road causing an obstruction.
4. Because of its height, prominence, proximity to and lack of sympathy for Hyde Park Road and neighbouring properties, the development would be detrimental to the visual amenity and character of the area.
5. Neighbourhoods for Living (page 43) requires that development should “respect what would be overlooked and overshadowed.” But because of it’s height, the building would dominate Hyde Park Road Road and the neighbouring Methodist church.
6. Page 7 of the Design and Access Statement states, “The height of the elevation facing Hyde Park Rd is very similar to the existing ridge height.” However, photos contained elsewhere in the Design and Access Statement show this statement to be incorrect
7. Page 6 of the Design and Access Statement states, “Critically the height of the proposed building is lower than the four storey student accommodation facility opposite.” If this is true, then the accompanying diagrams establish that the difference in height can only be a matter of inches.
8. The existing building was formerly the Park Hotel, known locally as “The Little Park” to distinguish it from the Royal Park Hotel and the Hyde Park Hotel. In White’s Directory of 1870 it is called “The Park Tavern” and is described as a beerhouse whose landlord was George Hobson. Porter’s Directory of 1872 reports that Mr Hobson was a councillor for Holbeck ward. The pub eventually came into the ownership of Melbourne Ales and passed to Tetley’s in 1960 when Melbourne’s was taken over by Tetley’s. In 1978 in a pub exchange, ownership passed to Bass. The pub was flourishing in the 1980s and would probably still be flourishing but for the increased demand for student accommodation that resulted from the Blair government greatly increasing student numbers. This former pub is the only building in the triangle of land between Woodsley Road and Hyde Park Road to survive from the mid nineteenth century. It was a pub for at least 120 years and a meeting place for the local community. It would be a tragedy to lose it now after so many years.

References

Burley Place Limited has amended planning application 16/01322/FU.The amended version of the planning application is almost identical to the unamended version, except that:

1. It’s being proposed to remove a small corner section of the top floor of the building facing towards Park Lane and placing it on top of the opposite end of the building thus forming an additional storey. It appears that this has been done to give the impression that the building slopes down the hill. But this impression is only given from one viewing position. This impression is created from this viewing position alone because it has the electricity sub station in the foreground, which makes the electricity sub station appear bigger than it really is in relation to the proposed student block. This viewing position is shown in the three images below. These show the building proposed by the original planning application, the earlier version of the current planning application and finally, the amended version of the current planning application. The third and final of these images also includes a number of trees. As can be seen, these did not feature in the earlier two images and presumably have been included to give the impression that the proposed student block is smaller than it really is.
2. It’s being proposed to close Rutland Mount to through traffic by using railings to block the entrance to it. It’s also proposed to remove Rutland Mount’s historic stone setts and replace them by concrete pavers. Trees would be planted even though it’s doubtful that any trees would flourish hemmed in on both sides by relatively tall buildings.

The three following images illustrate the building proposed by the original planning application, the first version of the current planning application, and finally, the amended version of the current planning application. They show how each proposed block would dominate neighbouring buildings and the surrounding area.

ooooooo

ooooooo

ooooooo

READ MORE

ooooooo

Planning application 14/03735/FU was submitted on the 24th June 2014 by Burley Place Limited. It was for an 8 storey student block at 46 Burley Street that would have provided 128 studio flats. The proposed building would have replaced the original building on the site which had one storey facing onto Park Lane. This building was demolished by the developer in 2013 without planning permission. In October 2014 the planning application was revised bringing the number of flats down to 113 and increasing the height of the building to 9 storeys. The application was considered by the city centre plans panel on the 12th February 2015 and rejected on the grounds that (a) the living accommodation would be cramped and (b) the building would tower over neighbouring buildings and would represent an over-intensive use of the site. Officers were delegated to formally draft the reasons for refusal.¹ A Decision Notice was issued on the 16th February.² On the 27th February 2015, the applicant appealed against the decision³ (Appeal reference APP/N4720/W/15/3005747).

The appeal was heard on the 22nd July 2015. It was rejected on the 10th September 2015 because, “The design of the blade would adversely affect the character and appearance of the locality, and the development would fail to provide a satisfactory standard of comfortable living conditions for future occupiers.” ⁴ The “blade” was the tallest element of the proposed building. The remainder of the building was 4 storeys tall facing onto Park Lane. Now a further revised application has been submitted (application 16/01322/FU). This latest application is proposing a building that would be without the blade but which would be 5 storeys tall facing onto Park Lane. So whilst the blade itself has been removed, the height of the rest of the building has been increased to compensate. The inspector who rejected the appeal did not say that an overall taller and bulkier building would be acceptable.

Before the plans panel refused the previous planning application, councillors were warned that if they refused the application, it would be impossible for the site to be developed, and yet here we are over a year later with yet another revised planning application albeit for a development with fewer (but larger) flats than was previously proposed.

The two following images illustrate how the proposed development differs from the previous proposal and how it would dominate neighbouring buildings and the surrounding area.

ooooooo

ooooooo
READ MORE
ooooooo

References

There has never been an easy way of knowing whether a company is based overseas. This is because there is no UK register of overseas companies operating in the UK. But now, this has changed. Private Eye has produced an interactive map ¹ which allows you to see which properties are owned by offshore companies, the name of the company, and the country the company is based in. The map shows that numerous local properties are owned offshore including:
oooooo

Because companies have to tell the Land Registry where they’re based when they purchase property, all the necessary information is held inside the Land Registry database. Private Eye has unlocked this database by searching thousands of Land Registry entries to uncover which UK properties are owned by offshore companies. The map for our area looks like this:
000000

oooooo
So, if you take a dim view of companies operating in the UK trying to avoid paying tax,² you might want to forego popping in for a pint the next time you pass any of the pubs listed above.
oooooo
Even Castle House, the building in the city centre occupied by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, is owned by a company based in the Cayman Islands!
oooooo
References

Planning application 14/03735/FU was submitted on the 24th June 2014 by Burley Place Limited. It was for an 8 storey student block at 46 Burley Street that would have provided 128 studio flats. In October 2014 the application was revised bringing the number of flats down to 113 and increasing the height of the building to 9 storeys. The application was considered by the city centre plans panel in the 12th February 2015 and rejected on the grounds that (a) the living accommodation would be cramped and (b) the building would tower over neighbouring buildings and would represent an over-intensive use of the site. Officers were delegated to formally draft the reasons for refusal.¹ A Decision Notice was issued on the 16th February.² On the 27th February 2015, the applicant appealed against the decision³ (Appeal reference APP/N4720/W/15/3005747).

The following images illustrate how the proposed development would dominate neighbouring buildings.

oooooooo

READ MORE
oooooooo
References

The Draft Site Allocations Plan¹ contains numerous errors in its calculation of open space provision in Hyde Park and Woodhouse ward. This is a serious flaw as the amount of new housing that a ward can sustain is based on the open space provision that would be available to new residents.

Paragraph 1.2 of Leeds City Council’s Draft Site Allocations Plan states that it uses open space figures from Appendix A² of the council’s Open Space, Sport and Recreation Assessment³ (OSSRA) published in 2011, and that it also includes some additional data.

The Draft Site Allocations Plan also states that it excludes sites that have been developed. This is incorrect as sites that have been developed have been included.

The Draft Site Allocations Plan claims that Hyde Park and Woodhouse ward has a surplus in all categories of open space except “Outdoor Sports”. But when errors within the Draft Site Allocations Plan have been corrected, Hyde Park and Woodhouse is shown to have a deficit in all categories of open space.

The map below shows the locations of several of the Hyde Park and Woodhouse sites referred to in the Draft Site Allocations Plan and also referred to in this post.

ooooo
Key

Parks and Gardens

The table below appears at paragraph 5.9 of the Draft Site Allocations Plan. The sections I’ve shaded yellow, indicate incorrect open space figures.

Read More

References

The proposed trolleybus route across Monument Moor

The re-emergence in Autumn 2013 of the inspector’s report on the Liverpool trolleybus application,¹ and the secretary of state’s decision,² showed opponents of the current Leeds trolleybus scheme that failure to replace open space is sufficient reason to recommend rejection of an application for a TWAO.

The NGT Project Board Minutes³ reveal that this major obstacle for the Leeds trolleybus scheme was already apparent to the NGT team. At paragraph 5d on page 9 of the Project Board Minutes of the 18th June 2013, it says that Mr Tom Gifford of Metro advised the group that the open space position in relation to Woodhouse Moor contravened both local and national guidance.

The local policy that would be contravened if the trolleybus were to run across Monument Moor is Policy N1 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan.⁴ The policy is set out on page 53. It states that N1 protected green space has to be replaced if it’s going to be developed, unless the need in the locality can be shown to be met.

The national policy that would be contravened if the trolleybus were to run across Monument Moor is Policy 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework.⁵ This states that open space should not be developed unless it’s surplus to requirements, or replaced.

At paragraph 4f on page 4 of the NGT Project Board Minutes of the 16th September 2013, it states that Deputy Chief Planning Officer Stephen Speak “raised concerns that it will be difficult to designate the land on Woodhouse Moor as surplus and Kieran Preston asked how this was dealt with on the Supertram project.” Mr Preston must have forgotten that Supertram would not have run across Monument Moor.

At paragraph 4f on page 4 of the NGT Project Board Minutes of the 21st October 2013, it says that acting Chief Executive of Metro, John Henkel stated that “it is difficult to argue the case for the land being classed as surplus.” Mr Henkel was referring to the land to be appropriated on the 8th January 2014.

To get round the problem, the promoters devised four separate strategies:

1. Trying to prove that Hyde Park and Woodhouse has a surplus of open space by referring at the Public Inquiry to an unpublished revised PPG17 study that forms part of the council’s Draft Site Allocations Plan.
2. Trying to prove that the mitigation required by the scheme would enhance the quality of the park and in this way make up for the loss of open space.
3. Arguing that Monument Moor has little landscape or historical value.
4. Appropriating part of Monument Moor and declaring it to be no longer required as open space.

References