In 1911, Leeds became the first city in the UK to operate a trolleybus service. It was introduced to appease residents who had been asking for the tram service to be extended to Farnley. The system was scrapped in 1928 because motor buses could be worked more cheaply as a result of their greater operational flexibility. Eventually, every other UK city with trolleybuses followed Leeds’ example and scrapped its trolleybus service. Then late in 2006, a year after the cancellation of Supertram, Metro approved plans to create a new trolleybus service in Leeds. This was done under the chairmanship of Stanley King, a well-known trolleybus enthusiast.

To begin with, the council and Metro didn’t have the funds necessary to make the scheme happen. And it seemed unlikely that it would ever happen as it was at the bottom of a list of ten transport schemes awaiting funding. Then, on the 5th July 2012, during a secret visit to Leeds, the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, announced that the scheme had won programme entry approval and a potential award of funding of £175 million. This meant that the scheme could go ahead provided its promoters, Metro and Leeds City Council obtained a Transport and Works Act Order. This surprise award of funding suggested that Nick Clegg’s announcement was the result of a political decision made possible by the presence of Lib Dems in the coalition government.

In 2009, it was proposed that the trolleybus would run from Holt Park in the north, to Stourton in the south. The route chosen would have led to trolleybuses running across the grass verge and York stone pavement bordering Woodhouse Lane between its junctions with Rampart Road and Raglan Road. But soon after the award of funding, Metro published an alternative route option which would have allowed the trolleybus to cross Monument Moor itself. On advice from Metro, and under a three line whip, councillors chose this alternative route. At a public meeting on 25th June 2013, Metro said that the chosen route would provide ‘enhanced traffic stacking’, and would ‘future-proof’ the scheme against traffic increases. The proposed scheme also involved a new access road across Little Moor to City of Leeds School.

In October 2013, we discovered that Metro had decided to appropriate even more of the Moor. Their plans showed that they wanted the York stone pavement and broad grass verge with the avenue of trees on the south side of Woodhouse Lane. Despite 152 objections, the appropriation was carried out by means of a delegated decision on the 8th January 2013.

A council report dated 18th December 2013, specifically states at paragraphs 2.10 and 2.11 that the appropriation was necessary to avoid Special Parliamentary Procedures. Special Parliamentary Procedures are only required where there’s no intention to replace the open space. Paragraph 4f on page 4 of the NGT Project Board minutes of the 16th September 2013 suggests that the decision to appropriate the land was based on advice from legal firm Bircham Dyson Bell.

At the the public inquiry, the promoters’ property expert, Richard Caten confirmed to the inspector that Special Parliamentary Procedures are only necessary when no replacement open space is provided. He also stated that the promoters had not asked him to find any replacement open space.

In October 2014, the A660 Joint Council sought legal advice on the timing and legality of the appropriation, and whether the appropriation meant that the inspector couldn’t take the loss of open space into account. The advice of barrister Alex Greaves was that the appropriation took place on he 8th January 2014, and that it was probably illegal. Mr Greaves said that despite the appropriation, the inspector could still take into account the loss of open space and the failure to replace it.

Mr Greaves’ advice means that we could have brought an application for judicial review of the appropriation process had we acted sooner, But at the time, there was no reason for us to act, as the advice on the NGT Metro website was that the appropriation would only go ahead if the application for a TWAO was successful. The advice given by the NGT Metro website was changed following publication of Mr Greaves’ advice. The NGT Metro web page remains unchanged since the change that was made on 23 October 2014.

The appropriated land had remained almost unchanged for over a hundred years, as shown by a comparison of the Edwardian postcard below with a more recent photograph.

In early 2014, when Councillor Richard Lewis, the head of the council’s Highways Department, was interviewed by Radio Aire, he described parts of Woodhouse Moor as “grim.” If this was the council’s view, then why had it been starving the park of funds? In 2010, Leeds City Council threatened to withhold planning permission for Leeds University’s St Mark’s Flats development if the university didn’t drop its demand that £150,000 section 106 greenspace money be used to enhance Monument and Cinder Moors. Under such pressure, the university dropped the demand.

As part of a Conservation Area, Woodhouse Moor is a Designated Heritage Asset under the National Planning Policy Framework. Yet there was no mention of this in the Transport and Works Act Order documentation, and there was no application for conservation area consent.

In her report published in January 2014, “The Historic Environment – Assessment of the Leeds New Generation Transport Environmental Statement,” conservation consultant Caroline Hardie listed the consequences of the scheme as follows :

“Monument and Cinder Moor would be significantly reduced by the proposal through the removal of a strip of Moor between Woodhouse Lane and the Henry Rowland Marsden monument and another strip on the opposite side of the road which is currently being ‘appropriated’ by the council for the scheme. It will also be affected by the introduction of new traffic and new road link to Woodhouse Cliff for school access (because the existing roads will become too busy) along Rampart Road displaced by traffic from Hyde Park Corner which will turn part of the Moor into an arterial route. This part of the conservation area will transform from a park with some minor roads to roads with some green space. Also loss of tree cover (on top of deliberate lack of maintenance) along boulevard on the Moor. Introduction of street clutter in a wide boulevard characterised by its lack of street clutter. Change of character also brought about by proposed use of Woodhouse Lane for twice daily traffic stacking so that trolley buses are given priority in bottle neck areas and new pedestrian crossings.”

“Views will now include overhead wires and poles when viewed across Woodhouse Lane. Views of Harrison and Potter Trust Homes on Raglan Road which are identified as being significant will also be affected when viewed from Woodhouse Lane.”

“The road will be closer to the Marsden statue which currently sits within a landscaped area consisting of a former circular flower bed and paths centering on the statue. When Marsden’s statue was moved to the Moor it was referred to as the Valhalla of Leeds’ statues in a local newspaper!”

“This route has the potential to disturb or destroy below ground remains dating to the prehistoric period. In the 1800s Bronze Age barrows were recorded on Woodhouse Moor, and while upstanding remains no longer survive, it is possible that below ground remains are still present in the area, according to the WYAAS. The name Rampart Road is thought to derive from nearby earthworks which might be the remains of an Iron Age fortification (Wrathmell 2005, 4).”

Ms Hardie concluded:

4.9 The NPPF makes it clear that the deteriorated state of heritage assets which have been deliberately neglected should not be taken into account in any decision (NPPF 2012, para 130). The demotion of Cinder and Monument Moors to park of ‘low quality’ therefore should be adjusted upwards to reflect their deliberate neglect and the positive contribution they make towards the wider conservation area and the approach into the city centre.

4.10 Taking an historic environment approach rather than that of a landscape study as provided in the ES, this would suggest that Woodhouse Moor for example is of considerable architectural and historic significance to the Conservation Area, that it is a designated heritage asset (as part of a conservation area) and so is of high sensitivity. The loss of the significant elements of the park’s character would be of substantial harm which when combined with a high level of sensitivity would be a major adverse impact.

Over 240 letters critical of the scheme were published in the Yorkshire Evening Post since the scheme was given programme entry approval in July 2012. Only a handful of these were supportive of the scheme. The Department for Transport received 1,880 formal objections to the scheme, and an online poll of over 7,000 Yorkshire Evening Post readers found that over 70% considered the scheme would be bad for Leeds. A survey of almost 2,000 Yorkshire Evening Post readers found that just 24% supported the scheme.

A public inquiry into the scheme took place over 72 days from the 29th April 2014 until the 31st October 2014. It was chaired by Inspector Martin Whitehead. Mr Whitehead’s report was given to the Department for Transport at the end of July 2015. On the 16th May 2016, the government announced that it had accepted Mr Whitehead’s recommendation that the trolleybus scheme be scrapped.