Bill

Plan to remove a section of 30 year old hawthorn hedge at the bottom of Belle Vue Road and replace it with a fence

.

The history of the hedge

.

When Barratt Developments was given planning permission in October 1979 (ref 79/26/01088) to build a small housing estate at the bottom of Belle Vue Road, the planning authority imposed the following condition:

Garden/planted areas where they abut footpaths to be used by the public shall be demarcated and bounded by walls, hedges or fencing of a type or style to be approved in writing by the city council before erection or planting and together with the planting and landscaping shown on the plan hereby approved, shall be provided by the developer concurrently with the erection of the houses hereby approved or within one planting season of the commencement of building operations on the site, whichever is appropriate.

And so it was that a hawthorn hedge was planted at the top of the steep grassy bank at the bottom of Belle Vue Road. The hedge borders the entire length of the footpath known as Kendal Walk.

.

View of Kendal Walk with the hedge on the left

.

The current planning application

.

The developer Rushbond has applied for planning permission (reference 11/03649/FU) to replace a section of the now 30 year old hawthorn hedge with a metal railing fence (here are the details). If the scheme goes ahead, Kendal Walk will look less like a country lane, and in the Spring, Summer and early Autumn, people walking along the affected section will no longer brush against protective hawthorn fronds as they pass. Instead of experiencing this close contact with Nature, they will be exposed to the uninspiring view of the tower blocks that comprise the Little Woodhouse student village.

.

View of the hedge from Belle Vue Road

.

The argument for removing the hedge

.

It is being claimed that roots from the hedge are causing the clay sub-soil beneath a two storey extension to 6 Kendal Rise to dry out. It is further claimed that this drying of the sub-soil has led to subsidence of the extension. The claim is based on the finding of a lab report dated 22 September 2009 that a sample of soil taken from 6 Kendal Rise on 8 September 2009 contained roots of the sub-family “Pomoideae.” Because the sub-family Pomoideae includes hawthorn, the inference is that the roots are from the hawthorn hedge. But are they? Several of the gardens of the Kendal estate were planted with hawthorn trees, and the plan that was approved on the 16th May 1980 shows that approval was given for a hawthorn tree in the front garden of 6 Kendal Rise, just in front of where the two storey extension is now located. If hawthorn roots have been found beneath 6 Kendal Rise, it is far more likely that they originate from this on-site hawthorn tree, than from the hedge, as the hedge is further away and on the other side of a tarmac path.

.
6 Kendal Rise

Extract of plan approved 16 May 1980 with added explanation

.

More likely reasons for subsidence

.
  1. The two storey extension was built too close to a steep slope.
  2. The foundations for the two storey extension are not deep enough. Where hawthorn roots are present, foundations should be to a depth of 2.1 metres (see this guide).
  3. Covering over the side garden with the two story extension, and the back garden with a very large garage, will have caused the clay sub-soil to dry out.
  4. Raising the level of the front garden by adding additional soil to it will have helped the clay-sub-soil to dry out. And by adding even more weight to the top of the slope, the additional soil will have have increased the likelihood of subsidence, already made highly likely by locating the two storey extension on the edge of the slope.
  5. Satellite imagery taken on 30 May 2009 shows that at that time, the front garden of 6 Kendal Rise contained a very large cherry tree. This was located very close to the house itself, and has since been cut down, though the remains of its massive trunk remain visible. This tree will undoubtedly have caused drying out of the clay sub-soil.
    .
    cherry-tree-9

    Satellite imagery taken on 30 May 2009 showing a large cherry tree in the garden of 6 Kendal Rise

.

Possible reasons to refuse this application

.
  1. Hedges are easy to maintain, whereas fences fall down if they are not maintained.
  2. Fences are subject to vandalism.
  3. This is a very windy hillside. Hedges diffuse winds.
  4. Hedges reduce noise.
  5. Hawthorn is the perfect hedging for nesting birds.
  6. Birds can roost in hedges. They cannot roost on metal railings.
  7. Hedges support insect life.
  8. In Spring, this hedge is covered in beautiful scented white May blossom, and in Autumn with colourful red berries, which birds such as blackbirds love to eat in the Winter when food is scarce.
  9. Hedges renew themselves every Spring. Fences become tatty and covered in graffiti.
  10. The hedge is situated at the top of a steep grassy bank. The roots of the hedge will be helping to stop the earth from falling down the bank. This is probably why the hedge was insisted upon by the planning authority as part of a soft landscaping condition when planning permission was granted to build the Kendal estate.
  11. The hedge is a planning condition imposed by the local authority on the developer when planning consent was granted in October 1979.
  12. The proposed fence would block a path down the grassy bank that people have been using for the past 30 years.
  13. Hawthorn is a native British species which can live up to 400 years. Planners often insist on native species when attaching soft landscaping conditions to planning consents.
  14. Hawthorn does not have a large root system. This may explain why it is so often planted immediately adjacent to paths and houses.
  15. The hedge has been a prominent and highly valued feature of the local landscape for 30 years. People would miss it.
.

Information about Hawthorn

gardenguides.com (online article)

The Love of Money

It’s three years since Leeds Girls High School left for Alwoodley. That’s three years in which local children could have been playing on the tennis courts and green spaces of the Leeds Girls High School site. The reason this hasn’t happened is because the School is determined to get as much money as possible for the site even though it no longer requires the land itself (having been allowed planning permission to build a new School on farmland acquired very cheaply at Alwoodley).

Three years ago, the School submitted planning applications to build on the Headingley site, and when these were refused last November, the School appealed against the refusals. And that’s where we are now.

Over 1,300 people objected to the School’s planning applications, and over 1,000 people signed a petition asking for the playing fields to be acquired for the use of the community. The heads of the five local primary schools have all asked for the same thing. And all the local councillors have objected to the planning applications and both MPs.

Given the overwhelming desire of an entire community to acquire this open space for the use of some of the most deprived children in the city, it’s hard to believe that anyone within the community would set out to thwart the community’s aspiration simply in order to obtain money.

A couple of years ago, following lobbying from Headingley Development Trust, INWAC councillors agreed that any off-site affordable housing contributions arising in any of the four INWAC wards should be paid to Headingley Development Trust. At last August’s meeting of Plans West, the School’s representative announced that the affordable housing contribution from the Leeds Girls High School site would amount to £1.7 million. So, if the planning applications had been approved, HDT could have expected to receive £1.7 million. And if the School’s appeal is successful, HDT will similarly benefit.

The School’s barrister made much at today’s hearing of the fact that the Headingley and Hyde Park Neighbourhood Design Statement refers to desirability of there being “new development in a landscaped setting” on the Leeds Girls High School site. The Headingley and Hyde Park Neighbourhood Design Statement was produced by Headingley Development Trust.

The School’s barrister said today that it’s quite possible that should the School win the appeal, that it will sell off the site piecemeal. If this happens, there will very likely be fresh planning applications, and Headingley Development Trust may have to wait quite a while before it sees its money – if indeed it ever does see it.

At the Inquiry today

Council Chamber

At the Inquiry today. the School appeared to have accepted that there’s a shortage of courts in the Hyde Park and Woodhouse, and Headingley areas, but maintained that if parents here were serious about their children playing tennis, they would drive them to tennis courts further afield. The School also maintained that the children themselves could travel by bus to these other courts.

The School’s website lists 25 tennis courts at its Alwoodley site and says that they are all to be floodlit. According to Lawn Tennis Association figures, that’ll be enough tennis courts to cater for 1,500 tennis players. Currently the School has 2,207 pupils. That means that the School expects 68% of its pupils to be tennis players. This compares with the Lawn Tennis Association finding that just 2% of the population play tennis. In terms of tennis courts, that’s an over-provision by the School of 3,400%

John the Baptist said, “Let the man who has two coats give one to the man who has none.” But even though the School has 25 tennis courts out at Alwoodley, built on land acquired cheaply at green belt prices, they’re not prepared to part with any of the courts they no longer require at Headingley, for anything less than market value.

Public Inquiry highlights Leeds University’s failure to provide tennis courts for its 33,000+ students

The Woodhouse Moor tennis courts, full to capacity even on a cold afternoon in January.

In response to evidence provided by the community which shows that Hyde Park and Woodhouse, and Headingley wards are severely lacking in terms of tennis court provision, the School is claiming that this evidence should be adjusted to exclude the large student population living in the area. The community’s evidence took the form of charts using Lawn Tennis Association standards applied to local population data. In response the School has supplied charts which are identical in every respect to the community’s except that they exclude the area’s student population. The School is arguing that the area’s students should be using the University’s own tennis facilities.

But what and where are these facilities, and are they adequate for the university’s 33,000+ student population ?

Using the LTA standard, which reckons that 2% of the population plays tennis, the university should be providing either 16 un-floodlit courts or 11 floodlit courts for its 33,000+ students. But instead, the university provides just 6 tennis/five-a-side football courts at Weetwood. So there are just 6 courts, and student tennis players are having to compete for their use with five-a-side football players. That the university is not providing sufficient courts, or even accessible courts is demonstrated by the fact that the university men’s and women’s tennis teams advertise organised tennis and coaching on Woodhouse Moor and at Batley, outside Leeds.

The university’s failure to provide adequate tennis provision for its students is a tragedy not just for its students, but for local people who are having to compete with students for the use of the already inadequate public tennis courts on our local parks.

The tennis court shortage within a one mile radius of Leeds Girls High School


The area shaded yellow on the above map shows all the ‘output areas’ within an approximate one mile radius of Leeds Girls High School (output areas are small geographic units used by the Office for National Statistics to show population related data based on census information).

At the time of the 2001 census, the output areas within a one mile radius of Leeds Girls High School contained 52,307 people. According to the Lawn Tennis Association, about 2% of the population plays tennis. This means that the area shaded yellow contains 1,046 tennis players. The Lawn Tennis Association has found that one outdoor un-floodlit court can service the needs of 40 tennis players. Within the yellow shaded area, there are 9 usable courts (6 on Woodhouse Moor and 3 in Burley Park) and 4 unusable courts (on the Elida Gibbs Recreation Ground). This all means that the area within a one mile radius of Leeds Girls High School requires an additional 17 outdoor un-floodlit tennis courts in order to provide the minimal number of courts to service the tennis playing population.

This evidence was today placed before the Inspector at the Leeds Girls High School planning inquiry.

Conservation Area Appraisal – This afternoon’s meeting at Wrangthorn Church Hall

From left to right: Phil Ward, Leeds City Council's Chief Conservation Officer; Tony Ray, Conservation Consultant; and Rosie Alp, from Leeds City Council's Sustainable Development Unit.


This afternoon’s meeting was very well attended and began with a talk given by Tony Ray. This was followed by a question and answer session in which Phil Ward answered questions and also listened to residents’ concerns about enforcement issues relating to Conservation Areas. In response to these concerns, it was pointed out that getting the Conservation Area established is a starting point, after which, enforcement becomes a possibility.

It was a lively and good humoured meeting, and after it was over, almost everyone I spoke to told me what a good idea they think the Conservation Area is.

Conservation Area Appraisal – Exhibition and public meeting at Wrangthorn Church Hall – 2.00 to 4.00pm Saturday 12th March

Wrangthorn Church Hall is the white building on Hyde Park Terrace to the left of Wrangthorn Church


If you’re concerned about any of the following taking place in our area,

  1. Inappropriate development
  2. Inappropriate advertising
  3. Over-development
  4. Demolition of historic and other important buildings
  5. Removal of York stone paving
  6. Loss of the area’s historic character

then please come along to Wrangthorn Church Hall at 2.00pm on Saturday the 12th March, where you’ll be able to express your views on proposals to establish a Conservation Area covering Headingley Hill, Hyde Park and Woodhouse Moor. A draft Conservation Area Appraisal has already been drawn up. You’ll be able to view the document during the Exhibition which begins at 2.00pm and comment on it and suggest changes to it. The public meeting will begin at 2.30pm and the city’s Chief Conservation Officer, Phil Ward will be present during it to talk and to answer questions.

Wrangthorn Church is the impressive stone Victorian church with a spire at Hyde Park Corner. Here is a map showing its location.

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).