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.
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:
Hyde Park Road is the “through road” for local traffic between Hyde Park Corner and Kirkstall Road.
If cars are stopped passing down the normal through road, they will simply take a longer route down other, less appropriate roads.
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.
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.
Leeds City Council’s PPG17 audit, when it appears in December, will calculate demand for tennis courts based on already established figures for participation in the game of tennis, Lawn Tennis Association recommendations, and local population statistics. Since these are all known now, there’s no need for us to wait until December. Using the same parameters that will be used in the city’s PPG17 audit, we can calculate now how many tennis courts are needed by local people.
Methodology
Need has been assessed by :
Applying the percentage of people nationally within three age groups who were found by Sport England’s Active People Survey (APS3) to play tennis weekly over a 12 month period, to the number of local people within the same age groups.
Determining how many tennis courts these people need using the Lawn Tennis Association standard of one court for every 45 residents.
Headingley
Hyde Park and Woodhouse
Using the above methodology, it can be seen that Headingley requires 9 tennis courts and Hyde Park and Woodhouse requires 7. Since Headingley already has 2 courts (at St Chads) and Hyde Park and Woodhouse has 6 (on Woodhouse Moor), this means that there is a need for 8 additional courts. Consequently, the 7 courts on the Leeds Girls High site cannot be considered surplus to requirements.
An alternative method of calculating the need for additional courts would be to use the finding of The General Household Survey 2002 that 1.9% of people aged 16 and above had played tennis in the previous fours weeks. This equates to 459 people in Headingley and 370 people in Hyde Park and Woodhouse (based on 2001 census figures). Since the Lawn Tennis Association recommends the provision of one court for every 45 people who play tennis, this means that Headingley requires 10 courts and Hyde Park and Woodhouse requires 7. At the moment Headingley has just two courts (at St Chad’s), and Hyde Park and Woodhouse has 6 (on Woodhouse Moor). So, using this methodology, Headingley needs an additional 8 courts and Hyde Park and Woodhouse needs 1.
Given that it’s so easy to do a PPG17 study to determine our area’s need for tennis courts, one can’t help wonder why the Planning Department didn’t include one in the report they presented to the councillors of Plans Panel West on the 12th August 2010.
At the meeting of Plans Panel West that took place on the 12th August 2010, planning officer Paul Gough told elected members that the Leeds Girls High tennis courts are not needed as there’s no demand for additional tennis courts in the area. He based his claim partly on the fact that six tennis courts on Woodhouse Moor were recently converted to a Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) through ‘lack of use’.
The reality is that the six tennis courts were poorly used because they were in a very bad state of repair as a result of many years of neglect. The above photograph shows the state they were in at March 2008.
When local people found out about the proposal to convert the courts to a MUGA, they expressed their opposition to councillors at a meeting of INWAC that took place on the 13th December 2007. In response, the councillors passed the following resolution :
That in respect of the multi use games area proposed close to Hyde Park Corner, North West Area Management be requested to seek clarification on the proposals, and to ensure that public consultation was carried out on any such proposal
Following the meeting, Lib Dem Councillor Penny Ewens was in touch with senior planning officer Paul Gough by telephone. Here’s an extract from an email he sent her immediately afterwards :
Further to our telephone conversation, I thought I would drop you a line to let you know my thoughts on the suggestion that the proposed MUGA should be subject to further public consultation. Basically my view is that further consultation is unnecessary and would delay what is a very worthwhile project on a site which is in need of upgrading….I think that if we start a debate on the principle of the development it could seriously embarrass the Council, mislead the local community and get us into a legal minefield. If we do not carry out this project, all it would take is one person to make a legal challenge and we would be in trouble….There is no need to prevaricate over this and, in my view, we should proceed to the implementation stage. I hope this is helpful advice.
It really is rich for Mr Gough to use the conversion of tennis courts on Woodhouse Moor to a MUGA as justification for his claim that there’s no demand for tennis courts in our area, when he himself was instrumental in bringing about the said conversion against the wishes of local people.
In a report submitted to Plan Panel West on the 12th August 2010, Chief Planning Officer Phil Crabtree claimed that under plans submitted by the school, only later additions to the historic Main School Building would be demolished. And at the meeting of Plans Panel West that took place on the 12th August 2010, senior planning officer Tony Clegg made the same claim.
When Messrs Crabtree and Clegg say that all the historic Main School Building will be retained, they are merely repeating what they have been told by the School.
The above image reveals that the plans submitted by School include demolition of the School Hall and the wings to either side of it. If you click on the image, it will enlarge and you will be able to read the School’s claim that the School Hall is a later addition. The School Hall and the wings form part of the original building opened by Princess Louise in 1906. The School Hall was visited by suffragette Sophie Jex Blake in 1907 when she described it at the prettiest school hall she had ever seen. Below are two pictures of the School Hall.
At today’s meeting of Plans Panel West, councillors were given a mind numbing cocktail of misinformation and omission which might have fooled Solomon. And in case that wasn’t enough, there was even a bribe thrown in and a threat that the School might sue if no decision was made on the Leeds Girls High planning applications.
Misinformation
Senior planning officer Tony Clegg told councillors that the applications would “preserve the best of the 1905 building with loss of the unattractive later additions.” The truth is that the applications would result in demolition of 50% of the original school building.
Whilst acknowledging that UDP policy N6(i) requires that replacement playing fields be located in the “same locality”, senior planning officer Paul Gough claimed that in the case of the School, “same locality” means anywhere in Leeds, since the catchment area of the School includes the whole of Leeds. But since the School’s catchment area also includes Harrogate, if Paul Gough’s interpretation of “same locality” is correct, it would mean that the Leeds UDP allows playing fields to be transferred to another city, which is clearly absurd.
Paul Gough said that it doesn’t matter if our area loses the tennis courts on the Headingley site, because the public has never had access to them, and because they’ve been replaced by tennis courts at Alwoodley, to which the public does have access. But according to the Grammar School at Leeds website, the only sports facilities at Alwoodley that are available to members of the public, are indoor sports facilities, and these do not include tennis courts. And the indoor sports facilities are available only on a for hire basis.
Omissions
Paragraph 10 of PPG17 states, “Developers will need to consult the local community and demonstrate that their proposals are widely supported by them”. Yet even though over 1,300 local people have objected to the School’s plans, planning officers didn’t mention paragraph 10 or the fact that it gives residents a right of veto on development on open space on the site.
UDP policy N6(ii) states, “Development of playing pitches will not be permitted unless there is no shortage of pitches in an area in relation to pitch demand locally.” That there’s a shortage of pitches in our area is demonstrated by the fact that the six schools within one mile of the Leeds Girls High site have just 29% of the playing pitch requirement of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 (SPRs). And yet planning officers made no mention of the SPRs. Neither did they mention the thousands of students who live in our area and who play football, rugby and tennis on our local park, because the university’s own facilities are several miles away at Weetwood and Bodington. And whilst acknowledging that the heads of five local schools have asked for all three playing fields to be acquired for the use of their pupils, senior planning officer Paul Gough sought to play down the importance of this clear evidence of demand for pitches in our area by saying that Education Leeds has concerns about the safety of pupils being transported to the Headingley site and the possibility that children could be injured by needles on the site.
Bribe
Paul Gough told councillors that if they approve the applications, the School will make Ford House Garden available to the public on a ten year lease. When councillors said they didn’t feel this was for long enough, the School’s representative said that if in the future, the council approves the School’s application to build on the Victoria Road Protected Playing Pitch, they can negotiate on Ford House Garden. Clearly the offer on Ford House Garden is a bribe designed to achieve planning permission on the Victoria Road Protected Playing Pitch. What Paul Gough failed to point out to councillors is that Ford House Garden is itself a Protected Playing Pitch, and therefore, not open to negotiation.
Threat
Chief Planning Officer Phil Crabtree told councillors that the School was considering taking legal action for non determination. What Mr Crabtree didn’t tell councillors was what he should have said to the School in response. Namely, that the reason for the delay has been the School’s failure to supply a satisfactory PPG17 audit, combined with his own department’s reluctance to proceed to panel without one.
———————-
Fortunately, the councillors of Plans Panel West could see what was going on and decided to defer making a decision until after they’d been supplied with a great deal more information.
This Thursday, the 12th August, the councillors of Plans Panel West led by Councillor Neil Taggart, will decide applications from the Grammar School at Leeds to build on the former Leeds Girls High School playing fields at Headingley. Logic dictates that the councillors will refuse the applications, since Leeds City Council’s Unitary Development Plan gives N6 Protected status to all three Leeds Girls High playing pitches. But factors other than logic are at work. At a meeting of a planning committee last October, senior planning officer Christine Naylor told Plans Panel West that the Leeds Girls High School playing fields are “brownfield sites” and therefore ripe for development. What Ms Naylor said is at odds with national planning guidance. Planning Policy Guidance 17 clearly states at paragraph 14, “Parks, recreation grounds, playing fields and allotments must not be regarded as previously developed land″. According to Manchester’s Head of Planning in a report he submitted last year to a Manchester City Council Scrutiny Board, “National planning policy in Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 (PPG17) provides clear guidance that playing fields must not be considered as previously developed land or as it is more commonly known ‘brownfield’ land. In planning terms school playing fields are therefore ‘greenfield’ sites that fall within the general definition and protection given to all defined playing fields.”
The Unitary Development Plan gives N6 Protected status to the Leeds Girls High School playing fields out of recognition that Hyde Park and Headingley are deprived in terms of playing pitch provision. N6 status is given irrespective of who owns pitches, or whether the public has ever had access to them. Not only does the UDP protect these pitches from development, but via policy N3 it confers a duty on the local authority to acquire them for the community should the opportunity arise. Such an opportunity has arisen now. With the girls’ school having gone to Alwoodley, the way is clear for the Council to acquire the Protected Playing Pitches at the Headingley site. But instead of trying to protect the playing fields, so that they can be purchased for the use of local people, Leeds City Council’s planning department is recommending to the councillors of Plans Panel West that they give their approval to the applications to build on the playing fields.
I call on the councillors of Plans Panel West when they meet this Thursday, not to listen to the planning department, but instead, to stand up for the policies laid down in the UDP and in so doing, to stand up for the people of Hyde Park and Headingley. In this way, they will make it clear that it is our elected representatives who run this city, and not an unelected bureaucratic elite which apparently doesn’t even know the difference between a brownfield site and a greenfield site.
In a now highly embarassing note dated the 11th February 1998, made in connection with the university’s objections to the inclusion of the former Grammar School cricket pitch within the UDP as an N6 Protected Playing Pitch, the Planning Dept commented as follows : :
The council responded to these objections, considering that there was a gross deficiency in playing pitch provision, particularly in some inner city areas, including University Ward.
Policy N6 seeks to protect playing pitches from development unless particular exceptions apply. The first of these (N6i) allows for overall pitch quality and provision to be upgraded though part development or relocation. N6ii allows development if there is no shortage of pitches, locally, and city-wide, and the land is not required for additional greenspace.
Subsequent to these comments being made, a deal was done between the council and the university which allowed the university to build on the Protected Playing Pitch, in exchange for a cash payment of £255,000 intended to establish replacement facilities on Woodhouse Moor.
The Planning Department note acknowledges that development is only permissible if there is no shortage of pitches locally. And yet, the result of the arrangement with university was that this area ended up with even less playing pitch provision than it had before. That there is currently a gross deficiency in playing pitch provision in this area is proven by the fact that none of the local schools comply with the School Premises Regulations 1999 in terms of playing pitch provision. In order to make these schools comply with the regulations, the council would have to acquire all three of the available Leeds Girls High Protected Playing Pitches. This could easily be done, for as Protected Playing Pitches, the land is worth no more than £15,000.
