Sometime after 2016, four Leeds wards were re-arranged. These were Headingley, Beeston and Holbeck, City and Hunslet, and Hyde Park and Woodhouse wards. Hyde Park and Woodhouse ward was split down the middle, with the division running through Woodhouse Moor. And so Hyde Park and Woodhouse ward, with its shocking statistics, was broken up. Headingley ward absorbed the deprived area of Hyde Park, and Little London and Woodhouse ward absorbed the deprived area of Woodhouse. We were told at the time that the re-arrangement was necessary because the population of Headingley ward had become too low for it to remain a ward. Previously, the area around Woodhouse Moor was all Hyde Park and Woodhouse ward, and so it was very easy to obtain statistics that showed living standards in the area around the park. This became impossible after the re-organisation. The latest census for Leeds prior to the re-organisation, was in 2011. This table shows the car ownership data from that census for every ward in Leeds. The figures it gives are the percentage of households possessing a car.
Adel and Wharfedale
40.8
Alwoodley
42.5
Ardsley and Robin Hood
43.4
Armley
39.8
Beeston and Holbeck
39.2
Bramley and Stanningley
44.1
Burmantofts and Richmond Hill
33.7
Calverley and Farsley
47.5
Chapel Allerton
40.4
City and Hunslet
34.5
Cross Gates and Whinmoor
45.6
Farnley and Wortley
44.9
Garforth and Swillington
45.9
Gipton and Harehills
35.2
Guiseley and Rawdon
44.7
Harewood
36.4
Headingley
35.6
Horsforth
44.1
Hyde Park and Woodhouse
27.6
Killingbeck and Seacroft
40.1
Kippax and Methley
44.0
Kirkstall
40.8
Middleton Park
40.8
Moortown
46.2
Morley North
45.8
Morley South
44.9
Otley and Yeadon
45.0
Pudsey
47.5
Rothwell
44.6
Roundhay
44.9
Temple Newsam
44.3
Weetwood
43.6
Wetherby
40.7
This table has been compiled from 2011 census data stored on this website. It shows very clearly that Hyde Park and Woodhouse ward had by far the lowest car ownership of any ward in Leeds. Only 27.6% of households in Hyde Park and Woodhouse owned a car. This compares with an average across Leeds of 41.6%. The next lowest ward for car ownership was Burmantofts and Richmond Hill at 33.7%.
The wildflower meadow is not to be planted with whips
I learnt today that the wildflower meadow has been given a reprieve. It will not be planted with whips. According to Parks and Countryside, it carried out a consultation during Summer 2024, and more people said then that they wanted whips, than had said that they didn’t want whips in October 2020. But why didn’t Parks and Countryside consult the same community groups that it consulted in October 2020? It’s fine to ask complete strangers – cold – if they want whips on Woodhouse Moor. Of course, they’ll say that they would. But did Parks and Countryside tell these people that the whips would be planted on an existing, flourishing wildflower meadow? Did these people have a debate, the way that local community groups had a debate in October 2020, a debate in which all the drawbacks with planting whips on the main Moor could be discussed?
On 18 December 2024, I met a representative from a butterfly conservation group, and a representative from Parks and Countryside, on Woodhouse Moor. The representative from the butterfly conservation group was wanting to establish areas of wildflower meadow on eight different Leeds’ parks. These were to cover 2000 square metres each. We already have a wildflower meadow on Woodhouse Moor which exceeds 8000 square metres in size, so I thought that accommodating this person’s requirements would be no problem. But when I arrived at the park, I found that the wildflower meadow had been cleared, and the grass mowed. The representative from Parks and Countryside told me that the wildflower meadow had been cleared as it was planned to plant 390 whips (small young trees) there. But local community groups were consulted in October 2020 about planting whips on the Moor, and it was decided after long debates, that no part of the main Moor was suitable for them. The meetings also decided that Monument Moor and Cinder Moor across Woodhouse Lane from the main Moor, were eminently suitable. But the Woodland Creation team didn’t seem interested in these areas. For them, the planting had to be on the main park. The consultations were organised by Phil Staniforth and Thuja Phillips from Parks and Countryside, and they took part in both meetings, held by Zoom because of the pandemic. After the meetings, the chairs of Little Woodhouse Community Association and North Hyde Park Neighbourhood Association wrote up the findings of the meetings and sent them to Parks and Countryside, and also to the Woodland Creation Team (the group behind the initiative). 1122 So, given all of this, why are Parks and Countryside in collaboration with the Woodland Creation Team, planning on going ahead with whip planting on the main Moor? Doesn’t consultation mean anything to Leeds City Council?
I met Thuja Phillips from Parks and Countryside on the park earlier today. She was accompanied by colleagues from Parks and Countryside, and the contractor. Thuja was wanting to replace cracked stone flags around the Victoria Memorial with tarmac. I told her that in a Leeds conservation area, you have to replace York stone flags with other York stone flags. I also showed her page 27 of the Headingley Hill, Hyde Park and Woodhouse Moor Conservation Area Appraisal. 11 This is a council document, and it says the same thing. It also says that the area of York stone should be extended “wherever possible.” I pointed out to her too that if the council forbade the use of vehicles on the park, there would be no cracked flags. But all of this fell on deaf ears. Thuja said that there was no money for York stone and that she would have to make an “executive decision” to replace the flags with tarmac.
Workmen are today putting up fencing to prevent Little Moor being used as by the patrons of TJ’s as a car park. Whilst this is very welcome, it’s only happening as a result of years of persistence by one of our committee members.
All that’s now required is for the remainder of Little Moor to be fenced. This will prevent those motorists who have been displaced by the new fencing, from parking their cars on other, as yet unfenced sections of Little Moor.
This photo was taken by Peter Mitchell in Spring 1986. The man being photographed is Francis Gavan. The clock tower of St Mark’s Church can be seen in the background. There is an exhibition of Mr Mitchell’s work at Leeds Art Gallery. It’s called “Nothing Lasts Forever” and is there until 6 October 2024. You can also see some of Mr Mitchell’s photographs in an article in today’s Guardian newspaper.
The Yorkshire Evening Post has published an article about the latest plans to light the paths on Woodhouse Moor. Here is some of what it says:
“A volunteer group has spoken out after plans to light a Leeds park path resurfaced.
The Friends of Woodhouse Moor group has warned the move, scrapped following an initial proposal decades ago, would create “a false sense of security” for those walking through the park at night.
In 1992, a deputation of women from Leeds University Students’ Union asked Leeds City Council not to proceed with plans to light the paths across Woodhouse Moor, over fears that lighting the paths would increase the perception that the paths were safe to use at night.
But there is now speculation that plans to light the park could resurface following a park artwork project launched by the University of Leeds in response to a safety study.
Speaking ahead of the art project, Mayor Brabin said: “We are determined to create a safer, fairer region and that means ending violence against women and girls.
The research identified several barriers preventing women and girls from using their local parks, including inadequate access routes, poorly lit areas, and male dominated public spaces that feel intimidating and exclusive.
Speaking to the YEP, Bill McKinnon, Chair of the Friends of Woodhouse Moor, said: “Initially everyone thinks ‘oh that’s a good idea and will make the park safer’ but it can lead to a false sense of security walking through an otherwise dark park.
“People walking along the lit paths become potential victims to wrongdoers hiding in the shadows so unless you are lighting the entire park, you don’t actually increase safety.”
Mr McKinnon added: “It only takes an extra two to three minutes to walk around the park at night as opposed to walking across it. In this way, people can avoid the dangers associated with crossing the park at night.
“And by so doing, they would be helping to preserve the darkness which the park’s flora and fauna need to thrive.””
On the 13th May 2023, an article appeared in the Guardian written by West Yorkshire’s mayor Tracey Brabin. In it, she said there was a need for women to “feel safe” in parks, and that this would be helped by better lighting.
On the 21st May 2023, Guardian columnist Eva Wiseman, responded with an article of her own saying that it wasn’t enough for women to “feel safe” in parks; they should actually “be safe.”
Now, because of Tracy Brabin’s support for lighting in parks, the powers that be are proposing lighting the paths across Woodhouse Moor, the oldest park in Leeds.
“Having a lighted path across the middle of the Moor will encourage pedestrian use. Lighting the path will give the impression that it is safe to cross the Moor at night, whereas in fact the opposite will occur. Crossing Woodhouse Moor at night will become more dangerous. A lit path will create a false sense of security.”
The reason the students said that the Moor would become more dangerous, is that lighting the paths makes it easier for ne-er-do-wells to spot people and then drag them away from the lit path and into the shadows. This was what the Yorkshire Ripper did to student Jacqueline Hill as she walked up Alma Road beside the Arndale Centre in 1980.
In a blog post I wrote on the 22nd November 2011 following a meeting at the Civic Hall about an attempt by students to light the paths across the Moor, I noted the following about what our local police inspector Ian O’Brien said:
“The inspector said that the view of the police is that lighting the paths on the Moor would lead to an increase in the number of attacks that take place on the Moor. He said the increase would happen because lighting would attract extra foot traffic at night across the park, and would make those crossing the park more visible to would-be attackers. He said that his advice is for people to walk around the park at night, and not across it.”
And here’s what I wrote about what the operations manager at Parks and Countryside Kris Nenadic said on the subject at a meeting of the Hyde Park and Woodhouse Forum later that same evening:
“Kris Nenadic spoke about the problems involved with any scheme to light the Moor. He said that to be effective the lighting would have to cover the entire park and not just the paths. He added that they’re no longer able to suspend electric cable because of cable thefts, and so they’d have to lay the cable in trenches, and with all of the paths being tree-lined, this would cause substantial damage to the roots of half the trees on the park. He said they’d also have to cut back the branches of the trees to enable the lights to shine on the paths, and to enable CCTV to have access to the paths. He added that CCTV would be ineffective against hooded attackers as the hoods would prevent the attackers being identified. Mr Nenadic said that Parks and Countryside believe that lighting would lead to an increase in the number of attacks for the reasons already given.”
If the Moor were to be lit, it would no longer be a dark park. Amateur astronomers would stop going there to study the moon, stars, planets, and constellations. Page 27 of the Headingley Hill, Hyde Park and Woodhouse Moor Conservation Area Appraisal states that the character of the Moor as a dark park should be preserved.
Lighting the paths would upset the bio-rhythms of fauna that live on and pass over the park. It would also have a negative effect on the park’s flora.
Locals debated the lighting issue in October 2006 at Woodhouse Community Centre. At the start of the debate, several people said that lighting would make the park safer. Then during the debate, the dangers of lighting the paths were pointed out. When there was a show of hands at the end of the debate, no one wanted lighting on the Moor.
Leeds University is promoting these proposals. It wants to make the park safer for its students – an admirable aim. But some things can’t be made any safer. Recognising this is part of growing up. The paths across the Moor are always going to be dangerous at night. If people want to stay safe, they should avoid crossing the park after dark.
To the man in the street, Commonplace is an easy to use consultation platform which gives some people the voice they never had. The reason these people were voiceless is that they were hard to reach by conventional means. But now, thanks to Commonplace, many are engaged and useful members of Commonplace’s consultation community.
To developers and local authorities, Commonplace states that it provides a positive consultation response where previously there was “vocal opposition.” The company claims to get a 65% positive response rate in consultations it’s involved with. This is achieved by targeting social media ads at groups likely to support proposals, and by getting people who respond to these ads to join its “Community Panel,” which currently numbers over 200,000 people. Local authorities which employ Commonplace have access to the Community Panel, and consult local members about whatever they propose doing. They do this even if the majority of those consulted are unaffected by the proposals.
