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.
THE VIEW FROM MONUMENT MOOR JUST GOT WORSE AND IS LIKELY TO GET WORSE STILL IF LEEDS UNIVERSITY GETS ITS WAY
The above photo was taken in late October and is looking east from Monument Moor. It shows the trees in front of the university’s St Mark’s flats. The photo below was taken this morning and shows the same view immediately after workmen had cut the trees down. If you look closely, you can see their vehicles and equipment. The noise their equipment was making could be heard from the main part of the Moor. I felt sorry for anyone in the flats who was trying to study or rest, and for the retired residents of the Harrison Potter Home. Leeds University is definitely not a considerate neighbour.
The university recently presented a proposal to replace St Mark’s flats with a larger complex of flats. So the question’s got to be, “Why cut the trees down now?” Could it be that the university regards the grant of planning permission as a foregone conclusion ? If the university does get planning permission, then heaven help this part of Woodhouse, for what they propose is truly awful.
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.
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.
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.
At the age of three I was taken to Leeds parks to see the animals, to play on the grass, to see the boats and to have an ice-cream. A little later, I was taken there for a paddle, for a ride on the motor launch, to the fair, to watch Punch and Judy, to listen to the band, to attend Children’s Day, to watch cricket, to go on the children’s playground, to have a picnic, to sledge, to see the flowers, to see and feed the ducks. Later still I’ve gone there to swim, to watch yachting skills, to visit hothouses, to go to the circus. Later to meet friends, to walk and talk with them, to experience the beauty of a park at night, to sit alone in a park on a bench in the middle of winter and there to contemplate a change of career. And yet later, I’ve gone to Leeds parks, and taken others there for the therapeutic healing which their atmospheres can induce. I’ve pushed invalids in wheelchairs to Leeds parks – people with dementia to let them experience again what it is like to be with people out in the open air and all having a good time. I’ve taken my daughter as a child there, a fostered child there, I’ve exercised my dog there, I’ve taken mobile people with mental problems there and I’ve skated on ice there. I’ve flown kites there, played ball there, I’ve watched cycle racing there and I’ve fished there.
I’ve visited Leeds parks for Pop Concerts, Open-Air Theatre shows, I’ve wined and dined there, played tennis there, attended dog shows, taken part in sponsored walks, danced there, watched model aircraft being flown there. I’ve rowed boats there, made tree rubbings there, read books and studied there. To get to Leeds parks, I’ve trudged, walked, “trammed”, bussed and car journeyed there.
All of these things hold memories for me that I wouldn’t like to be without. Not one of them interfered with anyone else’s enjoyment of any park at any time. Isn’t this the fundamental problem with barbecues? BARBECUES INTRUDE UPON OTHER PEOPLE’S LIVES.
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.
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.
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.
On the 21st August, the Yorkshire Evening Post published the following last minute plea from local community associations for the council to abandon its plan to create a barbeque area on Woodhouse Moor :
It is now over 5 months since Leeds City Council launched its plan to concrete part of Woodhouse Moor to create a barbeque area. This would install 40 large concrete blocks in the Moor at a cost of £20,000 and scrap the byelaw banning fires in a section of the park right next to the children’s playground and nearest people’s homes.
We are grateful to the YEP for its fair and balanced airing of the issues. However we now understand that the Council is about to announce its decision. We understand many YEP readers must wonder what all the fuss is about.
It’s very simple really. We love our park.
Woodhouse Moor, the city’s first public park, is a gift that one generation passes onto another. As the community most deprived of greenspace in Leeds we need a way to share this space with everyone. The Moor should be safe for dog walkers, joggers, picnickers, allotment holders, team sports, wildlife and young mums with a push-chair. It should not be an area where the selfish minority hold sway.
The scale of the vandalism we have witnessed both this summer and last is ruining the park for everyone. The litter, destroyed benches and picnic tables, bonfires, branch ripping, allotment raiding, drug taking, smashed glass, burned metal, noise, graffiti and tons and tons of dumped rubbish are not sustainable.
We have no confidence in the Council’s consultation exercise which has been a farce and fraud from the beginning.
We therefore ask the Council at the eleventh hour to safeguard this green treasure for all and not to appease vandalism with £20,000 of concrete and a turned blind eye.
As we now know, the community’s plea fell on deaf ears. I suppose it was too much to hope that the council would drop the plan now after going to the trouble of (1) excluding the community from the multi-agency meeting that gave rise to the plan, (2) changing the city’s byelaws to make barbeque areas possible, and (3) organising a biased consultation – all apparently so the plan could go ahead.
