LCC – Woodhouse Moor Online

DEPUTATION TO INWAC 24.2.11

March 3, 2011 Bill Comments 0 Comment

At this evening’s meeting of INWAC at St Chad’s Parish Centre, Sue Buckle made the following plea for funding for park wardens for Woodhouse Moor:

Byelaws and barbeques on Woodhouse Moor – an issue on which much has been said! However, I ask you, please, to listen without preconceptions as it’s an issue many people care about, passionately.

Byelaws exist so that everyone can enjoy parks safely, and leave a park green, unspoiled, and undamaged for the next people who come along, whether minutes, hours, days, or even months later.

Local authorities have a duty to enforce these byelaws.

In recent years, we’ve had problems on Woodhouse Moor, since the increased popularity of disposable barbeques. Although enjoying cooked food in fresh air doesn’t sound like a problem, unfortunately a “Barbeque Culture” can go with it which can lead to excessive alcohol consumption, with smashed bottles in the grass, leftover food to attract rats (and endanger dogs, in the case of chicken bones), with lasting damage to the environment. Smoke pollution can also be a problem to local residents, especially on sunny days.

As the most intensively used park in Leeds, serving an area with some of the highest population density in Leeds (and, indeed, the country) Woodhouse Moor has suffered along with all the people using it, whether walking across it to work or study, spending time there with children or dog, walking, running or just enjoying the peace and quiet of the green surroundings.

In 2009, when asked for park wardens to be provided, Councillor Procter said that if Parks and Countryside funded them, it would set a precedent for all Leeds parks.

So in February last year, INWAC voted £25,085 for two wardens to patrol Woodhouse Moor from April 1st to 30th September (This was part of the “designated barbeque area” proposal which was subsequently halted).

The result was wonderful! The system worked! Woodhouse Moor was a green park for everyone to enjoy – and so many people commented, over the Summer and since, how it was such a pleasure to see the park looking so beautiful.

It must be said that big thanks are especially due to Riz, who was on duty with the buggy for most of the Summer, and Kevin Barker, now retired, who did so much to make the scheme a success.

In June 2010, a report to the Executive Board said,

“The presence of Parks Watch officers is proving successful in preventing barbecue activity at Woodhouse Moor and enforcing the byelaws. If funding is sustained, then it is felt that enforcement activity could be a viable long term solution to address issues associated with barbecue use.”

That £25,085 actually saved money – as the previous year over £100,000 was spent on call-outs to the fire service to deal with fires on the Moor, which invariably had started as barbeques, and less was spent on litter picking as extra Parks and Countryside staff were not called away from gardening duties to pick up litter (There were also less injuries to Parks staff, previously caused when they had to clear up the remains of barbeques, such as hot metal trays, sharp skewers and grilles).

We are asking INWAC – please could you vote £25,085 to cover the cost of wardens again this year – and for the next two years.

Woodhouse Moor is special. It’s a big part of people’s lives. Walking in the park in the morning can lift the spirits, especially when the sun shines through the trees on the grass, and as now, on the spring flowers. If it’s a mess, it can really bring people down, even upset them.

Our park is a place which people can retreat to, away from the streets of terraced houses, or just to escape the pressure of life. It’s especially beautiful now – and thanks must go to our local MBE, John Egan, who’s up there before 7.30 every morning keeping it that way.

Sometimes an issue comes up which transcends party politics. The Royal Park School Building is one. It was so great at the January Executive Board seeing all the political parties voting together to give the community a chance of getting Royal Park.

Please let this be another of those times. Please vote now to allocate funding for park wardens to enforce the byelaws on Woodhouse Moor from April 1st to September 30th, because although it might seem extravagant to compare keeping Woodhouse Moor green to saving the planet, if you do allocate the funding, it will feel to the people of Hyde Park as if you’re doing just that!

Sue’s speech received thunderous applause from the audience, and a warm and positive response from councillors, who said that they would be in a position to vote funds once they have met on the 9th March to decide their funding priorities. The 9th March meeting will be followed shortly afterwards by a special meeting of INWAC at which votes on funding will be made.

INWAC’S BROKEN PROMISE

December 13, 2009 Bill Comments 0 Comment

When Leeds University purchased the former Grammar School site, it’s clear it did so with the intention of building on the cricket field that formed part of the site. The fact that the cricket field had Protected Playing Pitch status in the Unitary Development Plan, was only a temporary obstacle. To get round the problem, they offered the council a bribe. They said that in exchange for planning permission, they’d give the council £255,000 to spend on replacement sports facilities on Woodhouse Moor. These were to include two mini soccer pitches and a Multi Use Games Area or MUGA on the site of the tennis courts near Hyde Park Corner. The council held all the cards. It just had to say no. Instead, in exchange for a paltry £255,000, the council agreed to the university’s proposals. And so the community lost the Protected Playing Pitch and in return gained the threat of formal sports facilities on the open parkland of Woodhouse Moor. All of this was agreed without any consultation with local people.

Friends of Woodhouse Moor raised the issue 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.

Mr Gough says that there’s no need for “further public consultation”. The fact is that there’s been no public consultation. And so, despite the promise that was made to local people by Lib Dem councillors in December 2007, construction work on the MUGA (pictures below) began a few days ago.

References

INWAC minutes 13.12.07
Paul Gough’s email 29.2.08

THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF WOODHOUSE MOOR

December 12, 2009 Bill Comments 0 Comment

Should you ever take a walk round the German Market – I won’t say “German Christmas Market” since it’s packed up and gone long before Christmas has even begun – spare a thought for the long suffering people of Hyde Park and Woodhouse. They are the unsung heroes of the German Market. You see, for two months of every year, part of Woodhouse Moor is turned into a container park to house the freight containers and cranes that are required to bring the market here and then erect it. (see photo below)

We’ve Councillor John Procter from Wetherby and ineffective Lib Dem local councillors to thank for this annual addition to the Moor. Any other city would arrange for the unsightly containers to be stored in a council yard. Only Leeds City Council would dump them on a park in a deprived inner city area where they can be viewed by the retired residents of the Harrison Potter Home and everyone who passes by on Woodhouse Lane.

THE TRIALS OF WOODHOUSE MOOR

December 12, 2009 Bill Comments 0 Comment

At a recent meeting of the Scrutiny Board, Councillor John Procter, the Conservative councillor from Wetherby who’s in charge of Parks and Countryside, declared that Woodhouse Moor is a wonderful resource for Leeds University. The truth of his words were borne out for me this morning when I saw a large truck with a trailer parked completely blocking one of the park’s paths. The trailer had been used to sell food and drink to people who’d been participating in the “Hyde Park” Time Trials, a weekly running event organised by Leeds University. Even though it’s annoying to see such blatant disregard for other park users, it has to be said that Councillor Procter and the university are inflicting far worse trials than this on Woodhouse Moor.

DUAL CARRIAGEWAY AHEAD

December 12, 2009 Bill Comments 0 Comment

This extensive area of tarmac may look like the start of a dual carriageway, but is actually the result of work carried out recently on Woodhouse Moor by Parks and Countryside. The path on the left of the photo has been added to provide a more convenient route for people using the park as a shortcut. Apparently, Parks and Countryside has forgotten that Woodhouse Moor is a park, not a shortcut. Its avenues were laid out in the 1870s not to provide the quickest route from A to B, but to provide pleasant strolls. Why should that carefully worked out layout be destroyed now for the sake of people who just use the park as a convenient short cut. If people are spoiling the grass by cutting across it, then far better to to plant bushes to deter them, or restore the low wire hoop fencing that used to edge all the paths on the Moor.

Parks and Countryside are crazy to be using their limited resources in this way, building unnecessary new paths which spoil the park’s appearance, especially when there are existing paths which need attention, like the badly rutted example pictured below.

DOES THIS LOOK LIKE ZERO TOLERANCE ?

November 29, 2009 Bill Comments 0 Comment

[Show picture list]

These photographs were taken in late Spring 2009 and are evidence of the anti social behaviour that takes place regularly on Woodhouse Moor. How can Leeds City Council allow such behaviour when at page 27 of its Vision for Leeds 2004 to 2020, it claims :

Making Leeds Europe’s cleanest and greenest city is an important principle for our Vision and we will launch a project to improve pride in the city. The project will:

draw together the actions of many organisations and businesses in Leeds to reduce litter, wastefulness and pollution;

promote individual rights and responsibilities to tackle these problems;

challenge those who create problems for others to solve;

create a zero-tolerance culture – the council and the Environment Agency will work together to reduce litter, abandoned cars, graffiti, stray dogs and dog fouling;

encourage big public-sector organisations like the council, universities, health service and private businesses to reduce waste, limit pollution and use natural resources much more efficiently; and

improve the quality of and access to our local parks and green spaces.

COUNCILLOR JOHN BALE

November 8, 2009 Bill Comments 0 Comment

At a recent meeting of the Scrutiny Board (Central and Corporate), Councillor John Procter said that the council has no policy of non-enforcement of the byelaws, but that when council staff are faced with infringements of the byelaws, they carry out on the spot risk assessments to enable them to decide whether or not to intervene. Councillor Procter added that once the designated barbeque area is in place, his department will be “ruthless on the rest of the Moor” and “shall deploy substantial additional resources to enforce no fires.”

Councillor John Bale was present at the meeting, and has expressed the following views on Councillor Procter’s statement, and on the need to enforce the byelaws :

I’m re-assured by Councillor Procter’s argument. Once the new policy is in place there has to be zero tolerance. Law enforcers always have to exercise discretion, and a rapid risk assessment (e.g. might violence ensue if I try to impose a fine now?) is a necessary part of exercising discretion. But once you start to exercise discretion, if you exercise it in one direction only, you’re back with anarchy.

Our laws and byelaws exist to protect citizens. It would be ludicrous not to enforce the byelaws. The problem is one of perception on the part of residents. Maybe risk assessment means that staff aren’t enforcing. Might it be the case that ParksWatch aren’t taking enforcement measures as they think it’s inflammatory and that the risks are greater with enforcement.

ParksWatch and byelaws are not to oppress but to protect people from nuisance and danger, and the environment. I’m worried that because of the difficulty of dealing with lit barbeques, the reality is that the byelaws are not being enforced. There may be a de facto policy of limited enforcement. If that policy exists, then the law is an ass, as it doesn’t provide the security to the public that the byelaws are meant to provide them with.

The difficulty is how to enforce the byelaws without the cure being worse than the disease. But this doesn’t help the residents affected by the problem. This is similar to the demise of bus conductors. We’ve given up on continuous supervision in the public realm. If people can light barbeques and no one can do anything about it, that’s a problem. From the public’s point of view, it amounts to non-enforcement.

THE COMMUNITY’S RESPONSE TO COUNCILLOR BRETT

September 27, 2009 Bill Comments 0 Comment

On the 11th September, Lib Dem leader of the council Richard Brett, had a letter in the Yorkshire Evening Post on the barbeque proposal. In it, he justified the Executive Board’s decision to proceed with the scheme on the grounds that a park should be for all to use, and that Woodhouse Moor should be treated no differently to parks at Otley and Wetherby which already have barbeque areas; and he pledged that he’ll “go back to the drawing board” if the barbeque area is a failure.

The five local community associations responded to Councillor Brett on the 18th September by pointing out that the Executive Board’s decision favours one group of people at the expense of several others, in particular, those with breathing disorders, and that the only measure that will deal with anti-social behaviour, is enforcement of the byelaws.

There was then a letter from Headingley resident Tony Green on the 24th September which made clear to Councillor Brett that the parks at Otley and Wetherby are not comparable to Woodhouse Moor, and that there has already been an unsuccessful trial barbeque area in 2006. Tony asked Councillor Brett why he doesn’t simply follow the example of Lambeth and save us all a lot of money.

Next came a letter on the 26th September from North Hyde Park resident Ann Massa who said that she is surprised that Councillor Brett should present a return to the drawing board as a concession, as it’s no more than what one would expect to happen when a scheme fails. Ann also questioned the validity of treating the Moor in the same way as Otley Chevin and the park at Wetherby.

(photo courtesy of Yorkshire Post Newspapers)

COUNCILLOR MICK LYONS O.B.E.

September 27, 2009 Bill Comments 0 Comment

This is what Councillor Mick Lyons (Labour) said to Councillor John Procter (Conservative) at the Scrutiny Board meeting that took place on the 16th September (Councillor Procter is the councillor with responsibility for Parks and Countryside) :

For many years I lived within walking distance of this park and considered it to be a lung in a densely populated area. When I went there, there were no barbeques. We’d picnics. John says about Wetherby and Otley. But they’re not in the centre. Woodhouse Moor is in an inner city neighbourhood. Why weren’t the byelaws used when complaints started in which case this problem would have been dealt with. Why will it work when people who live there say it won’t work. And why should students stop other people from using the park ? Will there be designated barbeque areas all over the city ? We’ve a beautiful park at Temple Newsam and I don’t want it spoilt by barbeques. I don’t want kids coughing and spluttering. If this is a trial, is it going to happen all over ? If they couldn’t prevent it before – how will they now when they’ve less money ? Will they take resources from other areas, other parks ? Are we going to have them elsewhere, and how are we going to police them ? And where’s the money coming from ?

If we’re talking about putting a designated area in one park, the fear is that one will also be put at Roundhay, Morley and Temple Newsam. They’ll say what’s good enough at Woodhouse is good enough for the rest of the city. If it goes forward here, it leaves it wide open.

OUTRAGED RESIDENTS WRITE TO THE YEP

September 27, 2009 Bill Comments 0 Comment

On the 14th August, there was a letter from Headingley resident Luke Blumler saying, like so many of us, that he never received a survey form, and pointing out that if it’s too hard to police an outright ban, that it will be equally impossible to police a ban outside the designated area. On the 31st August, there were letters from Helen Graham, Christopher Todd, Tony Green and Maureen Kershaw. Helen pointed out that it’s ridiculous for the council to say it would be too hard to police a ban, when it’s never tried. Christopher Todd wondered if the council will assess the success of its trial barbeque area by the number of branches pulled off trees. Tony Green made clear that if the byelaws aren’t being policed, it must be because the council doesn’t want them to be policed. And Maureen Kershaw asked why the Lib Dems treat barbequing on the Moor as if it’s some kind of fundamental human right. On the 21st August, there were letters from the five local community groups and local resident Janet Bailey. The community groups were making a last minute plea for the council to drop the scheme, and Janet in her letter warned the Lib Dems that what they are doing will not win them the student vote. In a letter that was published on the 22nd August, Kathleen Mason pointed out the health dangers associated with barbeque smoke, and said that enforcement is the only way to deal with the problem. On the 3rd September, Janet Bailey had a letter published arguing that it’s wrong that the Lib Dems have made barbeques on the Moor a party political issue requiring that all Lib Dem councillors toe the party line. On the 7th September, there were letters from Alan Slomson and Tony Schofield. Alan asked when the council last tried to enforce the existing byelaws, and Tony Schofield from Pudsey said that the way that councillors are ignoring residents on the barbeque issue will determine how he votes in May 2010. Then on the 10th September, there was a letter from me replying to one that had been sent out to residents by the Headingley Lib Dem councillors.