There have been a number of letters recently in the Yorkshire Evening Post pointing out the flawed nature of the council’s consultation exercise. On June the 15th, there was a letter from Christopher Todd. Then this Monday there was a letter from John Hepworth and Susan Bayliss. And in Tuesday’s paper Anne White and Jan Furniss had letters published . Finally in today’s paper, there was an article by reporter Suzanne McTaggart about Wednesday’s deputation to the full council which also criticised the consultation exercise.
Earlier today, Martin Staniforth led a deputation of local residents to a meeting of the full council to ask for the proposal to establish barbeque areas on Woodhouse Moor to be scrapped, and for the flawed consultation exercise to be abandoned. In addition to Martin, who is the chair of North Hyde Park Neighbourhood Association, the deputation included statistician Professor John Kent, and representatives of South Headingley Community Association, Marlborough Residents’ Association and Friends of Woodhouse Moor. Here’s is the speech that Martin gave to the council :
“Lord Mayor, Councillors, my name is Martin Staniforth and my colleagues are Sue Buckle, Richard Hellawell, Tony Green and Professor John Kent. I welcome the opportunity to speak to you today to oppose the Council’s unpopular, expensive and damaging plan to concrete over part of Woodhouse Moor, though I am sad that it is still necessary to do so. I am speaking on behalf of all the community groups in the Hyde Park and Woodhouse area. More importantly I am speaking on behalf of the hundreds of local people who have objected to this scheme at meetings and in writing, and the thousands who have been denied a voice because of the Council’s failure to deliver consultation packs to them.
Lord Mayor, I want to concentrate on three issues. First, the proposal itself. This would involve sinking 40 large concrete blocks into an open, grassy area of the Moor to allow for up to 80 barbecues to be lit at any one time. Local people have strongly opposed this plan both because of the impact it would have and because it is another sign of the Council’s lack of concern for Woodhouse Moor. What used to be an open space for all to enjoy is becoming an area where, on sunny weekends, many people feel uncomfortable and unsafe because of the drunkenness, vandalism and anti-social behaviour which goes on there, apparently unchecked. Local people don’t want to see money wasted on concrete blocks. They want it spent on improving the Moor, undoing the damage that has been done in recent years, and making it a welcoming, attractive and safe area for all.
Second, consultation. The Council claims to have sent 10,000 questionnaires to local households seeking their views on the proposal. However it’s very clear, from public meetings and other surveys, that many people who should have received questionnaires didn’t do so. But instead of investigating the complaints, Council officers have relied on assurances from the delivery company that they delivered to all households in the area, with one or two exceptions. Well, to quote Mandy Rice-Davies, they would say that, wouldn’t they! Officers also seem to believe that because some people in a street responded, everyone in that street must have received a questionnaire. However, as I’m sure you know, people delivering house-to-house often take short cuts and miss out houses or whole streets to get the job done quickly. Finally, apparently replies were received from only 155 of the 551 streets which should have received questionnaires.
Statisticians say it is highly improbable that replies would be concentrated in such a small number of streets if the forms had been properly delivered. My colleague Professor John Kent, Professor of Mathematics at Leeds University, would be pleased to answer any questions you may have about the statistical analysis of Parks and Countryside’s figures.
And now we have the truly bizarre situation that the Council’s Scrutiny Board has said the consultation was carried out properly while at the same time it has been extended to the end of July so that people who didn’t receive questionnaires can send in their comments by e-mail! Frankly this isn’t a consultation, it’s a shambles, a fiasco, and the investigation nothing more than a whitewash. It should be abandoned now and there should be an independent investigation into what went wrong.
Third, the role of local residents’ associations. We were excluded from the group which drew up this proposal. I use the word “excluded” deliberately because a Council officer told me that while associations had been invited to the first meeting “subsequent meetings of this forum evolved into a partnership of agency representatives and council officers providing a cohesive and constructive working group that are committed to and actively resolving the various issues on Woodhouse Moor”. Apparently local residents have nothing to contribute to resolving issues facing the Moor, despite our very real commitment to its long-term health. This is not the first time that proposals have been put forward for changes to the Moor without involving local people, and not the first time they have been strongly opposed by them. The exclusion of local residents from groups considering plans for the Moor is unacceptable, results in bad decision-making, and must be ended.
Lord Mayor, Woodhouse Moor is an historic park, dear to those who live near it and use it regularly. It is an asset that we hold in trust for future generations, and we should leave it in better condition than we find it. If the current proposal goes ahead, our legacy will be 40 concrete blocks and a degraded open space. We therefore call for the current plans for a barbecue area to be dropped, for the flawed consultation process to be abandoned and for local residents to be fully involved in any group developing plans for the Moor in future.”
Once again, people have been busy at their computers. On Monday Josie Green of Headingley let everyone know how local residents were excluded from the multi agency meetings that took place in May, June and July of last year, meetings which included the student unions, and which came up with the proposal for barbeque areas. There were two letters in Wednesday’s paper. The first asked why the report submitted by Parks and Countryside last October to the Executive Board, didn’t contain any cost benefit analysis in support of the barbeque proposal. The second, from Ian Harker, highlighted the fact that the council’s refusal to enforce the byelaws is costing taxpayers over £100,000 per year in call outs of the fire brigade to the Moor to extinguish fires. And finally yesterday, Tony Green pointed out that whilst you can be fined for dropping a cigarette end in the city centre, and leaving your bin on the street in Headingley, our councillors will support you if you set fire to our local park.
On Thursday the 21st May, there was a letter from H Johnson pointing out that the council’s refusal to enforce the barbeque ban is undermining the hard work of the Moor’s gardener, John Egan MBE. Then on the 23rd May, Barbara Tyldesley from Cookridge wrote that allowing barbeques on the Moor doesn’t help the council’s environmental credentials. On the 25th May, there were letters from Ian Falkingham of Woodhouse, and Chris Webb of Headingley Hill. Ian feels that our only importance to the council, is as a source of council tax. Chris asks how long the council is going to allow this situation to carry on, and if it would be allowed on green space owned by the universities. Tony Green from North Hyde Park had a letter in on the 27th May asking if the council can’t properly manage the Moor, are they fit to be managing the rest of the city. On the 28th May, Ann Massa from North Hyde Park said that our councillors are letting us down, just as our MPs have let us down. And then today, Friday the 29th May, Richard Hellawell from Little Woodhouse accused the Lib Dem councillors of riding roughshod over voters.
At the INWAC meeting on the 2nd July 2008, in connection with our request that councillors enforce the byelaw banning barbeques, Councillor Jamie Matthews said “If some people had their way, they’d stop everyone having fun”. Well these pictures show what the Moor looked like after just one afternoon and evening of people having fun. Councillor Matthews’ and his colleagues’ refusal to enforce the byelaws means that the surface of the Moor is being permanently degraded. Broken glass is being ground into the earth making the grass unsafe for everyone, but especially so for children. These councillors have much in common with the people who are causing the damage. They’re not from here, they don’t live here, and they don’t care about here. They should be made to pay for the damage they’re causing to the Moor out of their own pockets. And the bills for the “consultation” and fire brigade call outs should be sent to them too.
Once again, local residents have been furiously setting pen to paper to express their opinion on the proposal to establish barbeque areas on Woodhouse Moor. And no wonder, given the way so many have been disenfranchised by councillors who’ve gone out of their way to ensure that people not on the electoral register have a say in whether or not barbeques are legalised.
On Tuesday, there were letters from Bernard Atha, Jonathan Eyre, Albert Slingsby, and Christopher Todd. On Wednesday, there were letters from Colin and Marian Smith, Janet Sherwin, and Kathleen Mason. And on Friday, there were letters from Darrell Goodliffe, Louise Coombes, and Carol Millard.
All of the letters were against the proposal except the one from Lib Dem activist Darrell Goodliffe, who also had a letter published last Thursday.
In his recent letter to the Yorkshire Evening Post (Readers’ Letters 15.5.09), Darrell Goodliffe claims that the existing byelaws restrict the “legitimate freedom” of people without gardens to have barbeques on Woodhouse Moor. For this reason, he supports the council’s proposal to allow barbeques on the Moor. Mr Goodliffe says that the damage caused by barbeques will be limited by restricting them to designated areas. But to those who point out that drifting smoke would interfere with other park users’ right to breathe unpolluted air, he has no answer. Instead, he suggests that if drifting smoke is a problem, then the opponents of the barbeque proposal should also be calling for barbeques in private gardens to be banned. In effect, he’s saying that having to breathe barbeque smoke in a park is no different to having to breathe it in your garden. But to compare barbeques in public parks with barbeques in private gardens is not comparing like with like. If the smoke from my neighbour’s barbeque is causing a nuisance, I can ask him to put it out. If he ignores my request, I have the remedy at law of taking out an injunction to prevent him having barbeques in the future. But if barbeques are legalised on Woodhouse Moor, if I asked someone having a barbeque there to extinguish it, they would be within their rights to tell me to go to one of the other Leeds parks where barbeques are still banned. And for the same reason, I would have no remedy at law.
Recently, on the Yorkshire Evening Post website, a lady from Ottawa commented that she lives close by to what used to be a lovely park. Then her local authority legalised barbeques. As a result, the only people who now visit the park, are those who go there to have a barbeque. The residents of Hyde Park, Woodhouse and Headingley are fighting this proposal so that everyone can continue to enjoy Woodhouse Moor, not just a selfish minority.
The above photograph was taken on the 12th May 2009 and shows the smoke pollution from just one barbeque. Multiply this by 40 to get an idea of the level of pollution that Leeds City Council considers acceptable on a park which when it was purchased in 1857 was known as “the lungs of Leeds”.
It’s customary when writing to a newspaper, to supply an address. Many editors will refuse to publish your letter if you don’t. It’s about establishing your credentials as a real person, rather like the purpose of the electoral register. So it was highly significant that in his recent letter to the YEP, Darrell Goodliffe signed off as “Local Resident” rather than supplying an address (Readers’ Letters 7.5.09). Clearly for Mr Goodliffe, establishing in readers’ minds that here was a local resident who actually supports the barbeque proposal, was far more important than minor details like where he actually lives.
What’s not customary when writing to a newspaper is to state your political allegiance, unless of course you’re an active party member writing about an issue your party is deeply involved with. Under those circumstances, to deny your readers the benefit of that knowledge, might seem to some like a deception. I can understand though why someone would be tempted to do it. By stating your political allegiance, you run the risk that people might say “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he”. Which is precisely what people have been saying since learning that Darrel Goodliffe is a Lib Dem activist.
There were lots of letters in this week’s Yorkshire Evening Post on the subject of the barbeque proposal. The first was published on Tuesday and was from Phil Graham asking why he should pay council tax when the council won’t uphold the byelaws. Of course it’s a rhetorical question because Phil knows very well that if he didn’t pay council tax, they’d come and lock him up. If the people who have illegal barbeques knew that the same fate awaited them, there wouldn’t be a barbeque problem. The second letter appeared on Wednesday and was from Councillor Martin Hamilton who says that if the police had to deal with anti-social behaviour on the Moor, they wouldn’t be able to deal with more serious crime elsewhere. Councillor Hamilton, a former chair of INWAC, fails to mention that INWAC can make council funds available to the police to pay for additional policing. He also fails to mention that the assignment of park wardens to the park would improve park security without affecting policing elsewhere in the area and that last July, a deputation of local residents asked the council for two park wardens to be assigned to Woodhouse Moor, and were refused. The next letter also appeared on Wednesday and was from L E Slack who feels that the barbeques are inappropriate in parks, and that the consultation process is unethical. On Thursday, there were letters from Darrell Goodliffe and Tony Green. Mr Goodliffe says that opponents of the barbeque proposal “suffer from a basic refusal to deal with reality” and wear “blinkers”. Tony Green in his letter reports on the recent public meeting and the resounding “No” it gave to the barbeque proposal. On Friday, Cherril Cliff who lives in Armley, but works in Woodhouse, voiced her opposition to the proposal. Also in Friday’s paper was a letter from Howard and Christine Eaglestone asking how likely it is that people will keep to the proposed barbeque areas. Then in today’ paper, in a relatively short letter, former Headingley councillor David Morton makes a number of highly relevant points about the proposal itself, the consultation, the ASB that’s allowed on the park, and the neglect.
On Friday the 1st May, Councillor Bernard Atha issued the following statement :
“The Moor is under sustained attack now. Every day sees further damage.
I am opposed totally to the proposals for the barbecue slabs. They would not be allowed in Roundhay or Horsforth or Guiseley. Why Woodhouse?
I have asked that this proposal be submitted for planning application. I have not yet had a response after more than a week.
I have asked that big notices be put up saying barbecues are a breach of the bye laws and offenders will be prosecuted.
I have asked that local funds available to the Councillors are used to pay for extra police supervision and enforcement.
I have pointed out that the Lib Dems could stop this scheme now. Labour has 42 votes in the Council and the nine Lib Dems have nine in Inner North West Leeds making sure that any proposal to stop the scheme and save the Moor could be carried.
I have objected to the views expressed by the local Lib Dem Councillor James Matthews that as we cannot police the park we had better control it by this plan.
I object to the other Lib Dems who say they await the result of the consultation which, as many have written in to say, is a fraud as so many local residents have not received the consultation document which in itself was designed to produce the answer required.
I object to the statement made by the Lib Dems who say that the scheme is Cllr John Procter’s idea. He is a Tory. The idea has not come from John Procter I am sure, and in any case the Lib Dems and the Conservatives have formed a coalition and the Lib Dems are the biggest Party in that coalition.
We must defeat this stupid and damaging proposal and collectively make sure the Moor is protected and supervised properly.
The Lib Dem coalition has mounted a series of attacks on the Moor : making part of it a car park, turning over a large area to accommodate University pitches, a drinking den for easier supervision of the alcoholics displaced from elsewhere and hacking away a substantial strip of it to form a bus lane to ease traffic on what is the widest stretch of road on this extremely busy route out of Leeds. These have all been schemes produced by the coalition in which the Lib Dems are the largest Party.”
