Conservation objections to Planning Applications in Headingley, Weetwood and Hyde Park and Woodhouse
I am posting this as a basis for objections to the recent NGT conservation and listed building planning applications. I will be adding to the information as it is not quite complete, but since time is short I thought it better to put up a partially completed set of objections than none at all.
Please feel free to copy and paste sections to make your own objections. Send them giving also your name and address to
npcu@communities.gov.uk
and quote the application numbers where applicable.
and quote the application numbers where applicable.
The deadline is not absolutely clear at present, but if they are sent by Friday 8 Nov afternoon we are hoping they will be accepted. Send them even after this date and they may be accepted for a while.
Draft suggestions follow, Headingley objections now added.
It is possible to make a block objection to the entire route, however if you can add detail on specific applications and point out features ignored in the applications, such as mature trees and heritage stone pavements, or how it would affect pedestrians, that will help.
>>>>>>>>>>
I am writing to object to all 34 (as I understand
the number to be) of the conservation and listed building applications.
It is my understanding that a block objection can be made in one email to all
the applications.
As is clearly the case, all these applications
are in conservation areas and a number of them apply to listed buildings, and
on these grounds I object to them all.
The A660 is a route through numerous conservation
areas, continuous from the Ring Road to the University. There are some
three hundred or more mature trees shown on the NGT design drawings, and there
are many of these which have preservation orders on them. These 34
applications would be responsible for destroying a good many of these fine
trees without even identifying them as inevitably having to be felled for the
proposed works to go ahead. Two examples
of this are the trees around the wall at Rose Court mansion, the former petrol
station and the red brick house backing on to these from Victoria Road, where
there is a cluster of mature trees which give character to the area which would
entirely be lost should the walls and pillars of Rose Court to be moved, as
would be the case to some extent or another all the way along Headingley Lane
up Headingley Hill.
The second example is the magnificent stand of
mostly horse chestnuts above the retaining wall (a listed application) by no.62
which are probably a hundred and fifty years old. These would be necessarily destroyed if the
trolleybus route were to go through here as they are directly in the path of
the proposed route.
If it was lost, not only would it strip Headingley of another part of our history and landscape but it would change the character of the area beyond recognition for an entirely speculative road building program for the unproved trolleybus system.
Traffic volume last year was almost 4,000 a day less than it was ten years before. There is no need for road expansion as proposed.
http://api.dft.gov.uk/v2/trafficcounts/countpoint/id/17374.csv
I object to the moving or setting back of the piers on Rose Court mansion, Headingley Lane
These piers are listed structures and form part of the curtilage space around Rose Court. There is not a very large distance between the piers and the mansion, there was enough for access of a horse drawn vehicle when this was built and moving them back would cramp the front of the building and make the proportion meaningless. It is not specified how much space is intended to be taken, but elsewhere the figure of 5 to 10 meters is mentioned. Even a 3 meter setback would have serious adverse effect on what is after all a listed building and which should be preserved along with its curtilage.
This kind of destruction to heritage is not acceptable to local residents who wish to retain the heritage and architectural history of our local environment.
This is a massive proposed change to the character and appearance of the area. This appears to be a listed building or its curtilage. If all these conservation and listed building applications on Headingley Lane were to be implemented, one of the finest Victorian areas of character would be lost almost altogether.
This kind of destruction to heritage is not acceptable to local residents who wish to retain the heritage and architectural history of our local environment.
HEADINGLEY APPLICATIONS
13/03873/LI | Listed building application for
demolition of 45m section of listed wall. (TN071) – 62 Headingley Lane
Headingley Leeds LS6 2BU
I object to the destruction of this wall for the
proposed trolleybus route road building
This is an old wall that seems to have listed
status judging from the application. It is the boundary for an ancient
field.
If it was lost, not only would it strip Headingley of another part of our history and landscape but it would change the character of the area beyond recognition for an entirely speculative road building program for the unproved trolleybus system.
Traffic volume last year was almost 4,000 a day less than it was ten years before. There is no need for road expansion as proposed.
http://api.dft.gov.uk/v2/trafficcounts/countpoint/id/17374.csv
13/03877/LI | Listed building application for
setting back of the twin piers to the north of Rose Court (TN088) – Rose Court
Headingley Lane Headingley Leeds LS6 1BN
I object to the moving or setting back of the piers on Rose Court mansion, Headingley Lane
These piers are listed structures and form part of the curtilage space around Rose Court. There is not a very large distance between the piers and the mansion, there was enough for access of a horse drawn vehicle when this was built and moving them back would cramp the front of the building and make the proportion meaningless. It is not specified how much space is intended to be taken, but elsewhere the figure of 5 to 10 meters is mentioned. Even a 3 meter setback would have serious adverse effect on what is after all a listed building and which should be preserved along with its curtilage.
13/03878/LI | Listed building application for
set back of up to 70m of associated curtilage along Headingley Lane and up to
65m of associated curtilage down the western extent of Buckingham Road. (TN089)
– Buckingham House Headingley Lane Headingley Leeds LS6 1BL
This is a massive proposed change to the character
and appearance of the area. This appears to be a listed building or its
curtilage. If all these conservation and listed building applications on
Headingley Lane were to be implemented, one of the finest Victorian areas of character
would be lost almost altogether.
This kind of destruction to heritage is not acceptable to local residents who wish to retain the heritage and architectural history of our local environment.
13/03879/LI | Listed building application for
set back of up to 55m of associated curtilage along Headingley Lane and up to
80m of associated curtilage down the eastern extent of Buckingham Road. (TN090)
– Ford House Buckingham Road Headingley Leeds LS6 1BP
Amongst other things, this application would take
the children's playground at the northern end of the school grounds. In
terms of proportion and aesthetics the building up of the road above the school
would look obviously incongruous and disproportionate.
This is a massive proposed change to the character and appearance of the area. This appears to be a listed building or its curtilage. If all these conservation and listed building applications on Headingley Lane were to be implemented, one of the finest Victorian areas of character would be lost almost altogether.
This kind of destruction to heritage is not acceptable to local residents who wish to retain the heritage and architectural history of our local environment.
13/03914/LI | Listed building application for
the fixture of a stud anchor for Overhead Line Equipment onto the façade of the
building, approximately 6.8m or above from ground level in height, as part of
the Leeds NGT scheme. (TN030) – 79-83A Otley Road Headingley Leeds LS6 3PS
I object to this because these kind of fixings
inflict permanent damage on listed buildings which are supposed to be protected
from alterations.
13/03952/CA | Conservation area application for the demolition
of house and part of boundary wall. (TN065) – 6 Wood Lane Headingley Leeds LS6
2AE
There are several reasons I object to the
destruction of this fine Victorian house dating from approximately 1880-85.
Firstly it is occupied by some seven residents,
including one who has lived there for twenty years and two children who go to
the local school Shire Oak.
It was possibly the first house built on Wood Lane
and set in its mature garden gives a quality to the local environment and
heritage which is above much of that which is around especially the nearby
Arndale Centre.
Not the least reason to preserve this functional
and attractive building are the two mature trees in the front garden,
especially the magnificent copper beech, which were probably planted at the
time of building and thus would be about 130 years old, in their prime and
adding great character to the area which could not be replaced with container
grown trees.
Destroying this beautiful building for a speculative
trolleybus bypass would be nothing short of vandalism.
13/03955/CA | Conservation area application for demolition of building’s
southerly extension and southern curtilage. (TN069) – 40 Otley Road Headingley
Leeds LS6 2AL
The loss of the enclosed curtilage behind the wall
would have a detrimental effect on the amenity and proportion of the space
here, especially as it would be taken by road, trolleybus and overhead
cable. The wall gives character to the area and is congruent with the
character of Alma Road.
There are also two fine cherry trees which enhance
the space and should be retained, and two more mature trees within the
curtilage by the Alma Road entrance.
13/03957/CA | Conservation area application
for the demolition of ruined structures. (TN074) – Outbuildings To The East Of
35 Headingley Lane Leeds LS6 1PF
I object to the proposed demolition of these
buildings.
They are some of the oldest on Headingley Lane,
built from traditional local materials. They have great character and
should be listed and retained so that they can be redeveloped. It is my
belief that the prime reason these buildings have been allowed to decay is
because the uncertain future and planning blight which has hung over the whole
of this site due to endless ruminations about widening the road for the
Supertram or trolleybus.
These destructive speculations should be cast
aside and the redevelopment of the site within listed building guidelines
should be encouraged, thereby retaining as much of the heritage character for
the area as possible, without destructive road widening.
13/03958/CA | Conservation area application
for the demolition of the outbuilding adjoined to the north of the building and
curtilage. (TN075) – 31 Headingley Lane Leeds LS6 1BN
I object to the proposed demolition of these
buildings.
They are some of the oldest on Headingley Lane,
built from traditional local materials. They have great character and
should be listed and retained so that they can be redeveloped. It is my
belief that the prime reason these buildings have been allowed to decay is
because the uncertain future and planning blight which has hung over the whole
of this site due to endless ruminations about widening the road for the
Supertram or trolleybus.
These destructive speculations should be cast
aside and the redevelopment of the site within listed building guidelines
should be encouraged, thereby retaining as much of the heritage character for
the area as possible, without destructive road widening.
13/03959/CA | Conservation area application
for 5-10m set back of up to 300m of non-listed curtilage along Headingley Lane.
(TN076) – Curtilage To The South Of 35A Headingley Lane Leeds LS6 1BN
I am objecting to this conservation planning
application because of the following reasons.
On the NGT design drawings I was of the
understanding that the proposed setback was in the region of 3-4
meters. That was bad enough. The very concept of setting back
such a long section of wall on such a steeply sided hill with so many buildings
of architectural interest and antiquity in the way is flawed in terms of
overall design. It does not work with the proportions of the land and the
planning authorities should be working on retaining and restoring some of the richest
local heritage we have.
To extend an already ugly and ill proportioned
plan from 3 to 5 or even 10 meters would project a platform out over and above
the old High School grounds and look utterly bizarre, dwarfing all the original
19th century buildings like some giant flyover which would require a
massive built up wall that would tower over the surviving lower buildings it
would abut. The existing wall is already high on the natural contour of
the land which was built up when this was constructed in the 19th
century. The designers have not thought about the impact on the context
of existing surroundings but only used them as if they were a blank canvas for
their plans. The proposed road would look entirely out of place and
utterly change the character of our community forever. It must not be
allowed to proceed.
13/03963/CA | Conservation area for the demolition of boundary
wall to South. (TN078) – 5 Alma Road Leeds LS6 2AH
I am writing to object to the proposed demolition
of the wall on the boundary of 5 Alma Road as this and other stone walls
contribute greatly to the character of the area. This encloses the private
space of this house which has nine or ten car parking spaces which would be
lost.
Also there are two mature trees adjacent to the
wall which greatly enhance the area.
13/03964/CA | Conservation area application
for the demolition of boundary walls to the north of 2 Shire Oak Road. (TN079)
– Shire Oak Road Headingley Leeds
I am objecting to the demolition of this wall as
it is a long standing part of the visual amenity, probably built for the
Vicarage in the 1880s with a mature hedge including mature trees, the whole of
which contributes to the character of one of the finest streets in Headingley.
Trees do not seem to be included in these
conservation planning applications, and I believe that in the vicinity of Shire
Oak Road there are trees with conservation orders on them. I object most
strongly to removal of any trees, and most especially those which have
conservation orders. Replacement with container grown saplings can never
match trees of genuine antiquity even should they be 3 or 4 meters
tall. It is my belief that to suggest that they can is a morally
bankrupt and fraudulent assertion. Destroying a present good, the century
plus Victorian trees, for the speculation that replacements may or may not come
to fruition a lifetime from now is a preposterous plan.
13/03965/CA | Conservation Area application
for demolition of two boundary walls to south of 6 Wood Lane. (TN080) – Shire
Oak Street Leeds LS6 2AE
I am objecting to the demolition of these walls as
they, along with all the other walls and buildings (such as 6 Wood Lane itself)
contribute to the character and gestalt of the conservation area. There
are also in the vicinity several trees which are fine specimens. This
area is all well kept and a welcome contribution of mature visual amenity so
close to the busy and drab Arndale Centre.
13/03968/CA | Conservation area application
for demolition of boundary wall to front. (TN083) – 42/44 Otley Road Headingley
Leeds LS6 2AL
I am objecting to the demolition of this wall as
it, along with all the other walls and buildings (such as 42/44 Otley Road
itself) contribute to the character and gestalt of the conservation area.
There are also behind the wall several trees which are fine specimens.
This area is all well kept and a welcome contribution of mature visual amenity
so close to the busy and drab Arndale Centre.
If all these applications were to go through the
area would be unrecognisable afterwards. It is disgraceful the way Metro
and NGT want to destroy the fabric of our community
13/03979/CA | Conservation area application for the demolition
of the red-bricked gatehouse building. (TN084) – The Lodge 31 Headingley Lane
Headingley Leeds LS6 1BN
I am objecting to this destructive proposal which
seeks to make way for road widening.
This is a fine house of good character at least a
century old and apparently structurally sound, set proportionally well in the
contour of the land. It would be better to see it brought back into use
and retain the character of the area rather than be demolished and have the wall
set back up between 5 and 10 meters thereby utterly changing the character of
the area beyond all recognition.
All along this section there are many mature trees
which greatly enhance the amenity. If the site along Headingley Lane
could be free of planning blight and could receive some listing protection for
its historical status then it could be redeveloped profitably for residential
use or business.
To lose all these buildings, trees and antique
structures would be a major loss to the heritage of the community.
13/03980/CA | Conservation area application for demolition of
the northern section of the building. (TN094) – 35A Headingley Lane Leeds LS6
1PF
am writing to object to this application because
this house built in original local stone materials in the nineteenth century,
has great character and is a significant part of the visual amenity of the
area. It should be freed from the planning blight which has beset this
whole site for so many years and be allowed to be redeveloped within
conservation and listed building guidelines, restoring it as it deserves to be
and converted to a residential property or small business. It should be
retained as part of the heritage which characterises the area. Within its
curtilage and locality there are also a number of fine mature trees which would
be lost if the wall had to be set back. Since established trees are
sensitive to building excavation and construction several yards away from their
trunks the tree loss would not be confined to the road expansion area.
Also it is not made clear how far the walls are intended to be set back and
thus how much of this building would be demolished. In 13/03959/CA | Conservation
area application is made for 5-10m set back of up to 300m of non-listed
curtilage along Headingley Lane. This is an immense amount and
could take up a huge amount of this building. It seems that the
conservation planning applications are making greater demands than was apparent
from the NGT drawings which were made available to the public.
13/03981/CA | Conservation area application
for the demolition of walling. (TN095) – Walls To The North Of 6 Wood Lane
Leeds LS6 2AE
I object to the destruction of these walls as they
are a fine part of our local heritage in this conservation area. Also behind these walls on both sides are a
total of about a dozen mature trees which give the area its character.
13/04271/LI | Listed building application for setting back of
approximately 105m of walling by up to approximately 5m to Rose Court (TN097) –
Rose Court Headingley Lane Headingley Leeds LS6 1BN
I object to this application. This is a massive length of wall which
characterises the whole area. It is of
considerable antiquity and should have some degree of listing or
protection. The amount of proposed
setback is indeterminate, different documents suggest anything from up to 3
meters, 5 meters in this case and 5 to 10 meters in another of these
applications. Such vagueness is neither
helpful nor encouraging.
This whole length of wall is on a high and steep
slope, already built up against the steep gradient. An extension of 3 to 10 meters would necessitate
a huge build up that would absolutely dominate the remainder of the Leeds Girls
High School site and totally overshadow it in a most ugly way, destroying the
character and nature of this historic site.
The steepness and build up would make the use of any of the several
gateway entrances impossible, or at least difficult due to the gradient which
would be created from the level of the new road. As someone with a training in Art and Design it
seems to me to have no basis in aesthetics, and is likely to be unfunctional
due to its poor proportion and lack of holistic thought in its design.
13/04303/LI | Listed building for the fixture of a stud anchor
for Overhead Line Equipment onto the façade of the building, approximately 6.8m
or above from ground level in height, as part of the Leeds NGT scheme. (TN100)
– Eleanor Lupton Centre Headingley Lane Headingley Leeds LS6 1BN
I object to this on the basis that attaching modern
fixings of this nature to a fine old building like this would putting the
building at risk of damage as well as actual damage in the unavoidable drilling
and so forth to attach equipment, as well as detracting from the appearance of
the building.
WEETWOOD APPLICATIONS
13/03880/LI
| Listed building application for set back of up to 170m of associated
curtilage along Otley Road, Leeds and relocation of this curtilage to a
position of up to 10m north-northwest of the current position. (TN091) – Coach
House 184 Otley Road Headingley Leeds LS16 5LW
I object to this application. This is an immense length of wall which
largely determines the nature of the local character. The application to set the wall back 10m
northwest makes no sense, since the wall itself runs only a few degrees north
of west itself. There is not enough room
in front of the Coach House for a setback of this magnitude. The existing curtilage is quite limited
around the front side of this building. It
is questionable to talk about ‘relocating this curtilage’ as that is the
defined space around the listed building.
If the space around the building is lost, then it is lost. There may be space at the back of the
building, but that is probably already spoken for, and in any case this could
not compensate for lost buffer space at the front either in aesthetic or
practical terms. I would also strongly
suspect that the disturbance and upheaval necessitated by the proposed works
would be detrimental to the business. I understand
that local small businesses have made representations about this, and clearly
the shops opposite here at West Park would be affected by the massive amount of
traffic that would be created both for the rebuilding of the wall as well as
the road widening all along this route.
13/03887/LI
| Listed building application for relocation of the horse trough from
its existing site to a position approximately 8m to the north-west. (TN093) –
Opposite 62 Otley Road Headingley Leeds LS6 3QG
I object to this application because the only
reason to recess this horse trough would be to widen the road, which would
necessitate loss of grass verge and narrowing of the pavement. Also only a few yards from here is the
marvellous old gatehouse on the cornepr of St Chad’s Drive which would have the
pavement in front of it reduced by approximately half to judge by the NGT
drawings. This is a conservation area
York stone pavement, and any narrowing of width at any point along this road
would be both a loss of public amenity space by a busy road as well as
aesthetic detriment. Is there a statutory
width for pavements beside A roads of this nature? Too narrow a pavement could be unsafe beside
a main road.
13/03966/CA
| Conservation area consent for demolition and replacement of boundary
walls to west, up to 2.5m from their original location. (TN081) – Weetwood
House Court Otley Road Headingley Leeds
In the NGT design drawings this section of wall
is designated as being set back only 1.8m.
This is a fine traditional wall and its setting
back would be of detriment to the properties behind it, and the aesthetic
proportions, besides which there are at least four mature trees and several
areas of mature garden which would all be lost, again none of this is mentioned
in the application and their loss would be of detriment to the local character. Certainly no-one bought a property here
expecting to lose part of their frontage and have a long period of building
upheaval and passage of heavy vehicles for the road developments associated
with the trolleybus route.
13/03967/CA
| Conservation area application for the set back of boundary walls, up
to 4.5m from their original location. (TN082) – 1 & 1A Holly Bank Otley
Road Headingley Leeds
I object to this application because it would
change the character of the area. This fine
row o houses has a well defined wall dating from its construction, and the loss
of this curtilage would detract from the character of the whole row of Holly
Bank as well as the area. It is a busy
junction and the presence within the front garden of this property of a
magnificent tree, which may well date back to the building of Holly Bank in the
nineteenth century is of great value. This
is one of the finest trees on the Otley Road, and its prominent position
dominates the visual appearance of the area.
Anything more than light pruning would be entirely unacceptable, and yet
it would appear likely that this majestic being would suffer destruction
without even being mentioned in the planning application which seeks to destroy
it.
HYDE PARK AND WOODHOUSE APPLICATIONS
13/03875/LI
| Listed building application for relocation of
approximately 9m length of listed wall and one gate pier for reinstatement to a
location of less than 5m to the north-east of its current location. (TN077) – 1
Kingston Terrace Woodhouse Leeds LS2 9BW
The curtilage space by the wall
around Kingston Terrace is clearly defined and well proportioned. Taking a gate pier out of its context would
cause the original layout to be entirely lost.
With the moving of 9m of wall, which is almost thirty feet the structure
would be destroyed, and not least there
would inevitably be a loss of the extremely valuable parking spaces so well
placed as they are now.
13/03890/LI
| Listed building application for the fixture of a stud anchor for
Overhead Line Equipment onto the façade of the building, approximately 6.8m or
above from ground level in height, as part of the Leeds NGT scheme. (TN016) –
The Library Public House 229 Woodhouse Lane Woodhouse Leeds LS2 3AP
13/03941/LI
| Listed building application for the fixture of a stud anchor for
Overhead Line Equipment onto the façade of the building, approximately 6.8m or
above from ground level in height, as part of the Leeds NGT scheme. (TN052) – Emmanuel
Church Cavendish Road Woodhouse Leeds LS1 3EW
13/03942/LI
| Listed building application for the fixture of a stud anchor for
Overhead Line Equipment onto the facade of the building, approximately 6.8m or
above from ground level in height, as part of the Leeds NGT scheme. (TN053) –
Parkinson Building Woodhouse Lane Leeds LS2 9JT
13/03943/LI
| Listed building application for the fixture of a stud anchor for
Overhead Line Equipment onto the façade of the building, approximately 6.8m or
above from ground level in height, as part of the Leeds NGT scheme. (TN054) –
Blenheim Baptist Church Blackman Lane Leeds LS2 9ER
13/03944/LI
| Listed building for the fixture of a stud anchor for Overhead Line
Equipment onto the façade of the building, approximately 6.8m or above from
ground level in height, as part of the Leeds NGT scheme. (TN055) – 177 – 179
Woodhouse Lane Woodhouse Leeds LS2 3AR
I object to all these five above
on the basis that attaching modern fixings of this nature to fine old listed
buildings like these would putting the building at risk of damage in the future
as well as actual damage in the unavoidable drilling and so forth to attach
equipment, as well as detracting from the appearance of the building.
13/03915/LI
| The fixture of a stud anchor for Overhead Line Equipment onto the
façade of the building, approximately 6.8m or above from ground level in
height, as part of the Leeds NGT scheme. (TN031) – Pack Horse Inn 208 Woodhouse
Lane Woodhouse Leeds LS2 9DX
I object to this on the basis
that attaching modern fixings of this nature to a fine old building like this would
putting the building at risk of damage as well as actual damage in the
unavoidable drilling and so forth to attach equipment, as well as detracting
from the appearance of the building.
13/03953/CA
| Conservation area application for demolition of building. (TN066) – 2
Victoria Road / 25A Headingley Lane Leeds LS6 1BL
I object to the demolition of
this building. It is in good repair and
used for a local service. It is in the
character of much of the original local building of the area from the late
Victorian or Edwardian period and it would be a loss to the local character
were it to be demolished for the purpose of making an enlarged road junction,
which would inevitably be less pedestrian friendly, which is an important part
of the character of the area as it has been up to now.
13/03954/CA
| Conservation area application for demolition of
house, building and former petrol station forecourt. (TN067) – 27 Headingley
Lane Leeds LS6 1BL
13/03956/CA
| Conservation area application for demolition of
shop buildings. (TN070) – 11-23 Headingley Lane Leeds LS6 1BL
I object to these two
applications as these are valuable premises for small businesses who cannot
afford higher rents. There is a thriving
local community around here which would be severely damaged by the loss of
these amenities. In addition, the
redevelopment of this area and the old wall around Rose Court would mean the
loss of a fair number of trees. At least
four mature trees in the grounds of the house on Victoria Road and the former
filling station would be destroyed.
Adjacent to this is the last
remnant of the garden of Rose Court, a listed building. About 75 meters of garden would be lost if
the wall had to be set back along with a continuous row of mature and semi
mature trees with it. The entire
character of the area as it has evolved over two hundred years would be lost at
a stroke.
