Building harmonious relationships on the Moor.
I would like to stress that I am writing this guest post in an individual capacity and my views in no way necessarily represent those of any organisation I am a member of; they are purely individual views.
The debate over the council’s proposals to build a designated barbecue area on Woodhouse Moor has been contentious to say the least. On the one side local residents have raised concerns about the damage the construction of this area will do to the Moor and on the other side you have the council and people like myself who have argued that the proposals are the best practicable way to manage barbecues on the Moor and, of course, the people who want to use the Moor to have barbecues on. It is worth saying that the debate has exposed a tension at the heart of our community between permanent residents who feel ignored and temporary residents, ie, students who live here in a fair concentration. It is my view that establishing harmony between the two groups is one of the key challenges facing this community.
Turning to the proposals in detail; it has often been pointed out to me that there are by-laws in place which prohibit barbecues on the Moor and that preventing them is simply a matter of enforcing the existing by-laws. Councillor Martin Hamilton, speaking to the Yorkshire Evening Post on May 20th, raises a valid point when he questions whether creating a situation where the police will have to be involved is the most productive use of their time. One of the concerns has to be that so much time and effort would be spent enforcing the barbecue ban that serious anti-social behaviour would slip under the radar.
Also, since there has been a serious increase in demand for barbecues on the Moor there has to be questions asked over where the people who would have had barbecues on the Moor would then go. Shifting the problem around the place is not a solution and we do have to address the fact that some people clearly do want this; so, a question I do have to put to opponents is how would you address this? Concerns about the environmental impact of disposable barbecues are points well made but it is my view that a properly designated area could and should go hand-in-hand with providing raw materials and guidance for people to actually construct a rudimentary (but still effective) eco-friendly barbecue which can be effectively done with a few bricks; a grill you can find in any kitchen and the right charcoal. Here perhaps the proposals need to show greater imagination than just whacking concrete slabs down.
The same article points out that Woodhouse Moor has been used for “everything from hare-coursing and horse racing to a stage for political rallies and public demonstrations”. So, this isn’t exactly a new controversy but a re-casting of the tensions that exist over Woodhouse Moor itself and doubtless other green spaces across the country. Bill McKinnon speaking in the piece flags up the recent residents meeting which was attended by “over 100 residents, people who consider the Moor part of their home”. However, the Moor is not, properly speaking part of anybodies home; it is a public space which we all share, it is too their credit that people feel this strongly about something that is an important part of this community but nonetheless the facts remain as above.
Mr McKinnion is right when he says that if a designated area was created there would still be a question of enforcement but quite simply I would say restriction is always easier to enforce than prohibition. He is also right to raise the issue of ensuring the underground drainage is not damaged and let my emphasise that I am not here to defend the consultation not reaching everybody or any other problems that have been had. Looping-the-loop somewhat to the point I started off by making this does point to the need for new mechanisms to establish working relations between the residents who live around the Moor and the people who visit the Moor and want to enjoy it in a responsible way.
At the moment where the different interested groups come together tends to be the Area Committee; however, it is my view that this organisation has too broad a remit to deal effectively with this very specific issue which needs to see the local residents; people who work to preserve the Moor, and yes, representatives of the student community working together along with our local elected representatives. Therefore, I think the Area Committee should devolve this issue down to a sub-committee which reports to it and addresses issues like this directly.
25 thoughts on “Building harmonious relationships on the Moor.”
Darrell. Thanks for making this comment and for doing it in a spirit of reaching out and seeking to persuade. Although I don’t agree with your arguments, I do agree with your aim of building harmonious relationships.
Councillor Hamilton claims that police resources would have to be diverted elsewhere in order to enforce the byelaws. But they wouldn’t. Until at least the 1960s, Woodhouse Moor had two park rangers assigned to it. If park rangers were able to maintain order then, they could do it again now.
I agree with you that the fact people have barbeques on the Moor shows that there’s a demand. But just because there’s a demand for something doesn’t mean it has to be met. Children ask their parents for things all the time. Their asking doesn’t create an obligation on the parent’s part to give them what they want.
I don’t agree that restriction is always easier to enforce than prohibition. Everyone knows where they are with prohibition. So with a ban, eventually people would get the message not to bring barbeques to the Moor. Whereas with a designated area, people would be continually coming to the Moor in the expectation they could have a barbeque. Then, upon finding the designated area fully occupied, the likelihood is they’d have their barbeque anyway, somewhere else on the Moor. So you’d always need enforcement officers present to prevent them doing that.
As you quite rightly point out, Woodhouse Moor is public space which we all share. If it were a private place, it’s owner could do whatever he liked with it, provided he didn’t break the law. But because it’s a public place, we should only permit activities there which don’t prevent other people using the park. People who like to have barbeques would not be prevented from using the park were the existing ban to be enforced. But people who don’t want to breathe barbeque smoke would be prevented from using the park were barbeques to be allowed.
I can’t agree with your proposal that this issue should be devolved to a sub committee. We are where we are now because of the actions of a sub-committee that was formed last May.
Thank you once again.
Kind regards.
Bill
Bill,
It is good we can agree on aims; at least agreeing on the place we want to be is something.
In terms of park rangers the question comes down very much to funding although it would have the plus of creating employment opportunities.
It doesnt but I think there is a issue about where they would take them. Not all properties do have gardens or indeed ample facility to house them and this is the point I am making about spreading the problem. I agree that enforcement would still be neccessary however.
No they wouldnt but they would be prevented having BBQ’s on them and there are ways to reduce the smoke level through the use of the right charcols. One of the problems here is that the disposible BBQ’s are cheap and so are the materials that go with them.
With regard to the sub-committee what I am driving is the formation of some kind of consultative body where the interested/affected parties can meet and discuss issues like this of mutual concern and actually has some input into the formal structures that exist. What would you propose as an alternative?
Your welcome.
Kind Regards,
Darrell
People do NOT need to barbecue to have a good time – there are LOADS of local take aways that they could use. This problem only cae up in the last 5-6 years when local shops started selling disposible barbecues. I suggest that barbecues should be banned completely so that the smoke and burning issues are dealt with. I also suggest that readable notices are displayed outlining the bye laws and any fines that should accrue for breaking them. Notices indicating where the toilets are should be put up to help improve the public urination/defecation problems. Bins should be removed completely and bye law notices should state clearly that people should be expected to take their rubbish home with them and recycle/dispose of it in their own bins. After all they managed to bring it onto the Moor so why not act responsibly and take it back with them? With no bins there would not be a focus point for people to leave the bin bags in a heap for the rats, squirrels, birds and foxes to get into. It would be interesting to put a proposal to the take aways that if people brought their own bowls/dishes for the food, they might be able to lower their prices a bit to take this into consideration, then these dishes could be taken home and washed to be reused for the next take away.
In the recent radio interview the opinions of a resident and a student were heard – and both said the same thing – they both deplored the state of the Moor and the behaviour of the few who spoil it for everyone. Any sane and thinking individual would agree with this, so really focus groups are redundant unless they are going to force this too liberal council to do something about it and give the wardens and police the order to stop this unwanted (by everyone) behaviour!
Generators? Rubbish? Bottles? Noise?
See what’s left after Unity Day here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39109481@N06/
Helen,
I agree that people do not need to have a barbecue to have a good time and agree that the main problem is the disposable barbecues. However, I have to say your proposal that bins be removed is counterproductive to say the least and therefore should not be accepted although I am more inclined to agree about large public notices regarding the other issues.
Bin’s being removed would encourage more littering and is a singularly bad idea. People should of course be encouraged to use them and not litter the Moor but they should be left. Your proposal around the take-aways but it is something that would require negoiation.
HydePark6.
Thanks for letting us see your photos. I’d no idea that visitors to Unity Day dropped so much litter. If we had park wardens, they’d be able to stop people dropping litter whether on Unity Day or any other day.
Two years ago I was at Unity Day for the entire day manning the Friends of Woodhouse Moor stall. By the end of the day, I felt quite worn down by the loud music. So if you live close to the Moor, you have my sympathy. But the people who organise Unity Day are not fly by nights, like the people behind the illegal events. So if the noise is excessive, there is some recourse. You could ask the council’s environmental services to do something about it, or you could take out an action for nuisance to prevent it happening again.
But we need to remember that whether the activity is legal or illegal, what takes place on the Moor is the responsibility of our councillors. So if an activity upsets us, the best thing to do is complain to them. And if they refuse to do anything about it, we should vote for councillors who will.
Bill,
If you talk to people who work in the cleanning departments Universities they will tell you that, around the beginning of the century, a generation of young people entered whose tendency to litter was many times greater than that of their immediate predecessor generations. The Universities responded, not by attempting to modify the behaviour of their ‘customers’, but by cleaning up after them. On warm days the Parkinson steps began looking so filthy after lunch that cleaners were allocated to clear them in the early afternoon. (An early shift already existed to clear them of the previous night’s kebab-shop debris.)
At Manchester John Rylands has given up and introduced Food-friendly Libraries “The JRUL understand that today’s library provides a social space as well as traditional services. With this in mind the JRUL has relaxed its policy regarding food and drink.”
http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/foodanddrink/_files/fileuploadmax10mb,142490,en.pdf
“Library users are permitted to eat and drink, within agreed guidelines, as outlined in the Food and Drink initiative. ”
Now they do demand in the guidelines that users clear their litter:
“5. Please dispose of waste in a conscientious manner, recycle wherever possible and place rubbish into the appropriate bins that are provided throughout the building.”
You’ll need to ask the cleaning (and library) staff to tell you, strictly off-record to explain how that’s working.
Similarly afflicted, Unity Day appears to have offered to pay people to clean up the Moor the following day.
Now it’s possible that the middle-aged and middle class have become similarly filthy in their habits. What do Temple Newsom lawns look like after the Opera in the Park patrons have gone home?
HydePark6
But also at the end of the last century, there was a huge increase in the number of students attending university. A great many people now attend university, who in former years would have been in paid employment. I suspect that when their number of students increased, John Rylands never bothered to increase its staff complement. So there just weren’t the staff available to tell students to stop eating in the library. People need to be told by someone in authority when they’re doing something that’s wrong. As you rightly point out, that’s not happening anymore. But the underlying reason for it is that all these organisations are intent on saving money. Because of this, they don’t employ the number of staff needed to maintain order.
Darrell
We know from Parks and Countryside’s own figures, that Leeds spends less that a half per hectare on its parks what other major English cities spend. This suggests that there’s scope for increased spending in Leeds that could be used to provide park rangers. Also, at the moment, trained gardeners are spending several hours every day gathering litter on the park. They do this at weekends too and I assume they’re paid overtime to do it. This is all money that could go instead to provide wardens who’d be able to ensure there was no litter left for other parks staff to have to clear up. And finally on this point, Parks and Countryside don’t produce individual park budgets. If it was clear where Parks and Countryside’s money is going, we’d be better able to judge if the Moor is getting its fair share of the budget, and whether the city could afford to allocate park wardens to it on a permanent basis.
The question of where people who don’t have gardens would go to have barbeques is only a problem if you regard barbecuing as a fundamental right. Were these people never to have a barbecue, they would in no way be disadvantaged. But if we suppose that there is a right to barbecue, then Leeds City Council could allow people to exercise it by acquiring land for this specific purpose.
I don’t see how you could ensure that people used charcoal that produced a low amount of smoke. And trying to enforce a restriction as to the type of charcoal used, would be far more difficult to enforce than a ban on barbeques. It’s not just the disposable barbeques that create a lot of smoke. So as you say, the problem is the charcoal.
As an alternative to a consultative body, I’d propose enforcement of the existing byelaws. That’s what should have happened a year ago instead of multi agency meetings. The byelaws were drawn up so everyone can enjoy the park. When people start breaking the byelaws, you don’t sit down with them around a table, first you ask them to stop what they’re doing, and if they refuse, you fine them.
Kind regards.
Bill
Darrell
I agree with Helen about bins.
Clearly there aren’t the bins to take all the litter that’s being left. But if we increased the number of bins so that it matched the amount of litter, every one of the tree-lined avenues across the Moor would be lined with bins.
The Moor’s primary purpose is so that people can escape from the hurly burly of city life into a green oasis. Bins don’t belong in a green oasis. Any more than a handful of them and you bring the city into the park.
Kind regards.
Bill
Darrell writes:
“When people start breaking the byelaws, you don’t sit down with them around a table, first you ask them to stop what they’re doing, and if they refuse, you fine them.”
That’s the theory, here’s the practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Park,_Leeds#Hessle_Terrace
In the early hours of Saturday 5 May 2007, West Yorkshire Police shut down a street party held by the tenants of two properties on Hessle Terrace and Hessle Avenue, at which there were estimated to be 200-300 people. Students from the University of Leeds gained media coverage on BBC Look North,[10] BBC Radio Leeds, The Yorkshire Evening Post[11], several local newspapers and a minor article on the BBC Yorkshire website,[12] after claiming that the Police had used brutal and heavy handed tactics. They claim that at no point did the Police request the party be dispersed, however, the Police released a statement contradicting this claim.
Eight people were hospitalised with dog bites and injuries from Police batons, including one man with a fractured arm. Students involved claim that whilst the party was busy, it was also peaceful and relaxed, and that the Police’s use of Dog Handlers and Batons was an extreme overreaction. After the incident, a group of students involved launched a Facebook campaign, and sent complaints to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. After an investigation by the West Yorkshire Police, attempts to charge the members of the two properties that hosted the party for being a Public nuisance, eventually led to no charges being pressed by the police on the individuals in question.
There’s footage here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9tTibyy7IA
Pictures here:
http://forum.breakbeat.co.uk/tm.asp?m=1969256935&mpage=1&key=
YEP report here:
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Chief-refutes-brutality-claim-over.2861276.jp
BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/6628109.stm
Wikipedia:
And all very good for this student’s career:
http://www.4talentmagazine.com/tag/natalie-whelan
Bill,
To me that doesn’t neccessarily mean the money is there; specially in this climate of reduced central government support. Your guess is as good as mine on whether it is or not to be honest but I don’t feel this is a major source of disagreement since as I have already said I am in favour of a park ranger (maybe more than one) being brought to the Moor. I can certainly see the need having wandered round myself and seen your pictures; conceiveably it would also be a boon for people crossing the Moor later on into the evening too in terms of increased security. As you rightly say if we had a better idea of the sums involved it would be easier to make a concrete descision but like I said, in principle I dont disagree.
I don’t regard it as a fundemental right in quite those strength of terms; my concern as I have stated is where will these people go because they will simply want to have them. To me fundemental rights dont extend to those things that are pleasurable but we both now in a consumer driven society demand has a role to play in what people want. Your proposal of specific land for the purpose would to me be open to budgety question and also I suspect wherever it was situated might be an issue too.
I think the difficulty in enforcing these things rather depends on what enforcement options exist and whether the park rangers ar brought in to be honest. My point is rather focused around the fact that the problem is with low-cost disposable barbecues but that it is possible to have more eco-friendly ones and if we are thinking about having a barbecue area then maybe we can use that to encourage a cultural shift; especially amoungst students who when challenged are often very enviromentally aware.
I think there is an important point your missing here is that i was meaning more representatives of the students especially and also the HP & W councilors though that is just my personal suggestion and I dont know what any of them would feel about that. You have said on here that when challenged people have responded well in terms of accepting your points and this is why I said this; I think part of the reason that we have had this mess is that groups like your own have felt effectively sidetracked when it comes to questions of how the Moor is run and maintained and I want to create a forum where these bridges can be built.
On bins, I think again we are back to needing a park ranger to ensure that litter isnt building up to the point where it is overflowing and the exisiting waste managment options are groaning under the weight. I think they should stay as an aid to that effort and to remove them would be detrimental. I will give an example, smokers; now without bins and such forth to properly dispose of ash and stubbs where would they go if there was no facility to get rid of them? You can’t seriously expect to ban people from smoking on the Moor; especially now it is banned indoors.
I think there does need to be alot of work done on safeguarding the Moor and not all of it is down to the by-laws; this is why I am pleased we are having this discussion because these issues can be explored properly.
Kind Regards,
Darrell
Bill writes:
“I suspect that when their number of students increased, John Rylands never bothered to increase its staff complement. So there just weren’t the staff available to tell students to stop eating in the library.”
The Duke of Wellington remarked that:
“The whole art of war consists in getting at what is on the other side of the hill.”
There is a move to mixed mode learning spaces. In this JISC document
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/JISClearningspaces.pdf
we read p5:
“The Learning Café at Glasgow Caledonian University
was an early experiment in the use of space to support
problem-based learning and group work. The café
opened four years ago, and its success as a learning
space is clear from student evaluations.”
“The deliberate mix of refreshments, social activities
and IT makes this a relaxing and friendly place where
conversation and social interaction are seen as an
essential part of learning. Sixty open-access flatscreen
terminals stand back to back for group study in
the centre of the café, and on bars around the edges
for individual study, while laptops on a number of
low-level coffee tables encourage informal discussion
alongside access to IT.”
“A welcome page on the café website encourages users
to explore their learning preferences and timemanagement
skills over a cup of coffee, and links to
mind-mapping software introduce an essential tool for
learning support. Thin-client technology keeps background
noise and heat from computer drives to a minimum.
Learning cafés are now running successfully in many
institutions, proving fears over IT-based informal learning
environments unfounded. The Learning Café at Glasgow
Caledonian has also proved financially successful as
profits are ploughed back to cover the maintenance costs.”
More links:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/publication_txt.pdf
http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/learning-space-design/more/case-studies/sheffield/open-plan
http://www.cilip.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A0428DDC-F698-4DE3-A4E4-F5B086F33CAF/0/ChangingNatureofAcLibrariesppt.ppt
https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/3136/1/Bryant%20-%20Dissertation.pdf
This last has excellent bibliography and remarks:
“Although the café is not managed by the library, this study would recommend
that Imago (who operate the café for the university) consider extending the
opening hours during the busy revision period. The eating habits of the students
observed in this study would also lead us to suggest that the café begin to sell
pizza! Users were regularly observed eating takeaway pizza which was delivered
to them at the library. The vending machines were also frequently empty by mid-
evening. It would be worth ensuring that these are refilled twice per day as this is
a service which users clearly value. These are marketing opportunities which
would be worth exploring further.”
Bill,
Have you heard rumours of a plan, perhaps supported by the Victorian Society and John Thorpe, to return the Statues of Peel, Wellington and Queen Victoria from the Moor to their original situation in front of the Town Hall:
http://www.northeastengland.talktalk.net/LeedsTownHall.jpg
HydePark6
Thanks for the very interesting Hessle riot and library links.
The Hessle riot happened because the powers that be encouraged bad behaviour by allowing it to happen over a long period, and then it got out of hand. And now they’re so scared something similar might happen again, they’re doing nothing at all about the problem.
Whilst I accept that certain libraries are making a virtue, and money, out of some people’s lack of respect for the library and other library users, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that they allowed the bad behaviour so they could later take advantage of it. And similarly with the situation on the Moor.
I’d heard that John Thorp would like to move the Victoria Memorial back to the city centre, but not that the Victorian Society want the same thing, or that the move would also involve the statues of Peel and Wellington. Where did you hear this ?
Darrel
I think the money is there for park wardens, it’s just that it’s being spent in other ways. Last September, there was an article in the Yorkshire Evening Post about how Councillor Procter’s department spends £108,000 per year on security at a Leisure Centre in Halton. The article reported that most of the money goes on car park security to encourage people with cars to use the centre. That amount of money would pay for several park wardens on the Moor. I’m pleased we’re in agreement about the need for a security presence on the Moor. I think there’d definitely have to be more than one warden, as then they could back each other up. I understand that’s why Parkswatch always go about in twos. It’s because at some time in the past, one of them was beaten up.
The money is available to acquire land, and more of it becomes available all the time. This is the section 106 money that developers pay to the council when the council agrees to give them planning permission. The developer pays it in lieu of an on-site green space contribution. I agree with you though that there’d be opposition to any proposal to acquire land with a view to creating a barbeque site
As you say, there are better ways to barbeque. The problem on the Moor though isn’t just with the smoke from the barbeques. Many, if not the majority of barbeque-ers, simply leave their barbeques behind when they leave the park. These are often still smouldering.
I think your idea for a forum where bridges can be built is excellent. I’d misunderstood you. I thought you were meaning exclusive behind closed door meetings.
What you say about cigarettes is very true. I wouldn’t want to ban them from the Moor. But if people were to drop their cigarette butts on the ground, it would have less visual impact on the Moor than any bins that might be provided to take them.
I agree, it’s good to discuss these matters,
Kind regards.
Bill
Just as a matter of interest, if the Victorian Society want to replace the statues of Victoria et al in front of the Town Hall, will they please campaign to replace the statues of Adam and Eve (I never saw them but heard there were such statues), and the drinking fountain, and the cannons, and the lion? If there is one rule for one, then there should be one rule for all!
Bill,
Well if the money is there then I support it; my view is that costs could even be kept down by making it an entry level position so that would reduce the initial salary bill. Certainly from what you say here there is scope to create this vacancy or indeed vacancies which I feel would be a step-forward.
Just thinking out loud on the land issue; what about the parts of the Moor that are across the road from the main part? Now they are largely undeveloped are they not and could conceivably be developed and used in that way? Esepecially the area near the takeaways which could be used as some kind of recreational area/food consumption. I have the strong feeling i’m going to be shot down in flames for this but the fact is that if money was ploughed into that bit of the Moor and it was developed in that way then it would be a viable compromise position would it not? You will have to excuse the crudeness of this idea because it has only just occured to me sitting here and isnt properly thought through; hence my anticipation of being shot down in flames.
I take your point about the visual impact of bins but cigerette bins can be very small and discreet; having said that we are losing the main thread. I think a small number of bins placed by footpaths on the main Moor is still desireable just purely to reduce the problems you have outlined. I think we need to be thinking in joined-up terms here; a Park Ranger/s should prevent excess littering and if my proposal above isnt too outlandish something like that would see the main ‘litter focus’ shift.
I am definatly not in favour of more behind closed doors meetings; it is against my nature to support such things accept where i believe they are strictly neccessary for privacy, other reasons. I think the more debate is had in the open, the better etc,etc.
Kind Regards,
Darrell
I must admit that I’d prefer anything involving fires on the undeveloped part of the Moor IF we have to have it – that includes the Nov 5th bonfire which this year has made a complete mess of the Cannon Grass which is still not sorted out 7 months later, but the council get a revenue from it do they not – as a car park, and for Feasts? Also, any ideas about toilets? People seem to go to any lengths not to use the facilities provided – mind you, they don’t look very pleasant do they? People using the bushes (or peoples’ gardens) as a toilet could cause a Public Health hazard if it continues for any length of time.
Helen
Leeds City Council is like an errant husband, who because he’s realised his wife was the best thing that ever happened to him, has decided he wants her back. But any self respecting woman would never go back to where she wasn’t wanted, especially after 65 years. And even if Albert begged her, I don’t think Queen Victoria would have gone back to him after 65 years. And if she wouldn’t go back to Albert, there’s no way she’d want to go back to Leeds City Centre.
Darrell
Suggesting that the job of park park ranger be an entry level position would certainly be a good way to sell the idea to Parks and Countryside. Also, if they were able to issue on the spot fines, they might even be self financing.
The area you’re thinking about is known nowadays as Monument Moor. It’s where three years ago Parks and Countryside wanted to locate a pay and display car park. Back then, a lot of the strongest opposition to the scheme came from the residents of the Harrison Potter home. This is sheltered housing on Raglan Road that faces onto Monument Moor.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3165/2518727299_364d1e2486.jpg
One of the reasons that Parks ad Countryside gave for the car park, was that it was to relieve parking congestion in the streets around the home. If a barbeque area were to be established on Monument Moor, I think it could exacerbate the existing parking problem. And smoke from barbeques would almost certainly affect the residents of the home in the same way that it currently affects residents along Hyde Park Road. Monument Moor is actually a very lovely piece of the park with a quite unique character. I’ve got some really good photos of it that were taken by a Yorkshire Evening Post photographer during the car park campaign. When I’ve uploaded them onto Flickr, I’ll send you a link to them.
I agree with you about a small number of bins being desirable. I don’t think anyone could object to that. And I’m sure you’re right that there’d be far less litter, and therefore less need for bins, if we had rangers. Thanks for pointing out there are unobtrusive bins specifically for cigarette ends. I think I’ve seen them.
Kind regards.
Bill
Bill,
This is indeed true; to my mind it is a win-win situation, it is employment creation in a market of declining employment in an ecologically beneficial area in addition to the benefits for additional security etc, etc.
I can see your point about Monument Moor but what about Cinder Moor? The fair is held there; for example, would it not be possible to arrange themed ‘Summer BBQ Parties’ on this piece of land which may also bring in revenue which could then be ploughed back into development and/or other projects like the Park Ranger one? That way the main Moor is still protected; people have opportunities to have BBQ’s and revenue is generated which can then be ploughed back in. Hopefully, there will be scope to develop these ideas further at the Area Committee and it is a shame space was not made in the consultation for them to come forward.
Plus, Cinder Moor is largely very undeveloped too and so the damage would be kept to an absolute minimum. Thank you in advance for the links.
Kind Regards,
Darrell
Hi Darrell
Monument Moor was originally called Swing Moor. The first children’s playground in Leeds was established there, along with a gymnastics area, in the 1890s. In typical Victorian style, this was gendered – men on one side, women on the other; and children in the middle! This is clealy visible on the second edition OS map of 1896.
It is called Monument Moor today because the statue of Henry Marsden was relocated there in 1952. Former Liberal mayor of Leeds, the most popular of the century, without a doubt. Born on the streets of Leeds literally in rags, and became an inventor of industrial machinery. Founded the Leeds Music Festival.
Best wishes
Ian
Darrell,
These are imaginative and constructive suggestions.
There’s no doubt that barbeques on Cinder Moor would be far less damaging, and cause far less nuisance than barbeques on other parts of the park. My concern though is that it would still mean that barbeques were allowed on the Moor. People knowing this might come to the Moor in the expectation of being able to have a barbeque, whilst being unaware that the activity was restricted to just this part of the Moor. So you’d be back with the problem of enforcing a designated barbeque area.
Having organised sporadic barbeque parties in the manner you suggest might solve the problem. But this would be privatisation, and might lead to further privatisation. It’s already happening elsewhere, most notably, in Glasgow. And the council’s Parks and Greenspace Strategy that was published earlier this year revealed that Parks and Countryside do aspire to privatise our parks. So you see, privatisation is a very real danger.
Kind regards.
Bill