Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 18

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 18:

June 04  2014

The cross examination of Mr Philip Ward, leader of Leeds City Council Conservation team continued today with Gregory Jones QC, Helen Pickering of the Drummonds’ and Churchwoods’ Residents’ Association and Tony Ray, retired town planner.

As usual the links to the audio recordings of each session follow and my commentary can be found below them.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-enquiry-day-18-june-04-2014-first-morning-session/

On the morning of day 18 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, June 04 2014, Gregory Jones QC resumes his cross examination of Mr Philip Ward, leader of the Conservation team at Leeds City Council on Heritage matters, which is the subject of this week's Enquiry.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-enquiry-day-18-june-04-2014-late-morning-session/

In the late morning session of day 18 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, Gregory Jones QC completes his cross examination of Mr Philip Ward witness for Leeds City Council on Heritage matters.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-enquiry-day-18-june-04-2014-early-afternoon-session/

In the early afternoon session of day 18 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, June 04 2014, Helen Pickering, for the Drummonds' and Churchwoods' Residents' Association cross examines Mr Philip Ward of Leeds City Council Conservation team on Heritage matters which concern the communities along the consecutive heritage areas that are strung along the A660 from the University to the Outer Ring Road, also highlighting particular issues around the area of St Chad's Church in Far Headingley.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-enquiry-day-18-june-04-2014-late-afternoon-session/

In the late afternoon session of day 18 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, June 04 2014, Helen Pickering for the Drummonds' and Churchwoods' Residents' Association continues to cross examine Mr Philip Ward of LCC Conservation Department on Heritage matters and then hands over to Mr Tony Ray, retired town planner while some documents are being prepared which will be returned to tomorrow.

Tomorrow I shall be asking questions myself of the current witness Mr Philip Ward.  My job has been made a great deal shorter and simpler by the fact that a great deal of what I wanted to ask about has been covered by my fellow objectors Helen Pickering of the Drummonds’ and Churchwoods’ Residents’ Association and retired town planner Tony Ray.

They were able to work on a foundation built by Gregory Jones QC in which he built an argument that, as in so many other aspects of the Applicant’s case, it was not as thoroughly supported as it might be.

I was particularly interested in the lines of enquiry taken by Mrs Pickering and Mr Ray which both worked, in different ways, on the cumulative effect argument, that basically while in themselves many of the proposed changes which are admitted to be detriments might only be considered by the Heritage officer to be minor, the accumulation along the route would have a significant effect on changing the character of the area.  Helen Pickering pursued one line on the importance of such a consecutive series of Conservation areas being of special importance, which Mr Ward acknowledged for Leeds, but refused to consider it as of national importance.  Tony Ray on the other hand focussed on points where major and significant changes would be implemented, arguing that these are ‘substantial’, which again was resisted by Mr Ward, who claimed that a trolleybus route through Wood Lane which is at the heart of Headingley would not make the suburb unrecognisable.  Not unrecognisable perhaps, but like the face of a dear friend who had suffered in car crash it would never be the same and could never be seen again without a feeling of loss and pain.

I am finding Mr Ward a very interesting witness to observe.  He comes across far more in the vein of Gordon Robertson, the signals expert who spoke what seems a long time ago now, rather than Messrs Farrington, Haskins, Smith or Henkel.  That is to say one can’t help finding his manner engaging, he seems a genuine sort of person.  But as one observes and listens to his answers over long periods one can’t help feeling that he is holding something back, that perhaps he is in two minds about it all. 

Nonetheless he has disappointed the objectors by his adamant refusal to acknowledge that the cumulative effects of the NGT changes would be substantial, that the Headingley area and its well preserved Victorian structure would be damaged irrevocably, that even though the line would run directly in front of Headingley Castle where the effect would be ‘harmful’ the character of the area would not be lost and so on.

Near the end of today’s proceedings perhaps he dropped a little Freudian slip when he said that averaging the impacts on Woodhouse Moor they would be ‘more than moderate to major’.  He later tried to say something different, but the Inspector pulled him up and said ‘You did say that, I wrote it down’.

Despite such a slip I couldn’t help but feel that he was saying what he knew his masters wanted him to say.  Not that I am suggesting any obvious pressure was put on him, but we all know what it is like to work in a culture where a particular zeitgeist holds sway and how difficult it is to go against the unspoken assumptions.  If so many members of the public whom I know think that the trolleybus is a foregone conclusion, merely because the Councillors Richard and James Lewis (no relation) keep telling them it will happen and that it will be good for them, one can only imagine what it must be like working within the Council bureaucracy, where dissent would be looked down upon and that could lead to a level of self censorship which would be stifling.

It would take a person of strong conviction and individuality to step out of line in such circumstances.  It has been asked and clarified a couple of times that Mr Ward, while employed by the Council, is an independent witness.  This may be so in principle, but there are too many assessments of only minor to moderate impact, detriment or loss for the objectors to be fully convinced.  Perhaps he has just become blaze about the value of heritage assets dealing with them as his job.

One is left bemused by his admission that the new container grown trees would not fill out for 40 to 60 years and thus would not have reached full maturity before the expected life of the NGT scheme was run.  Most of the people in the room would be dead before they had achieved anything like the condition of the existing trees, and even the youngest would have reached old age by that time.  It is staggering to hear someone like this talk as if it doesn’t matter what we would have now, in our lifetimes, or that we would lose it.  It only matters to them that in one lifetime from now the new plantings will have regenerated the appearance of the area.  And then perhaps someone will come along with a new scheme in the tail end of the twenty first century saying that it is alright to destroy those trees because their new plantings will again be mature for the late twenty second century, claiming that we are planting for future generations.  But there is nothing wrong with the tree stock we have now.  Many of these species of trees can live for centuries, and we could leave our successors a stock of truly ancient city grown trees that have grown for two, three or even more centuries.  This is long term thinking, not the constant replacing and claiming it is for the future.  If we are really thinking about the future, we should think about preserving the best of what we have today, not destroy it. 

It is a form of doublethink.  Always sacrifice today for tomorrow.  If you want to save something of value for your community you are selfish and a ‘nimby’ (a trite and meaningless cliché) for not wanting to let some outsider take away what you and your community value for their own use.  All genuine values that have been understood for centuries have to be undermined and belittled.  Anyone who has independent thought and doesn’t cowtow to the dominant clique in Civic Hall has to be vilified into submission. 

Whether Mr Ryan 3chord boy was a paid lackey of Leeds City Council or just some poor deluded trolleybus enthusiast who thinks its cool to act like the great dictator and tell us all what is best for us (we don’t know of course) I have no idea.  I had hoped he had gone away after I had not replied to him yesterday when he sent me three consecutive tweets in a few minutes, but he is continuing to stalk me, so I have had to delete his messages.

I am happy to discuss with anyone the issues I raise on this page and other wider concerns, but I will not be limited to the false constraints of their narrow paradigm.  There is such a bigger picture here that to believe you can deal with it effectively with name calling in 140 characters is absurd. 

I have no idea whether he would read this blog, but if he does, and he genuinely wishes dialogue, then I would urge him to post here and we can have a better discussion than that available on Twitter, which is not designed for such things anyway.

This is our city, our beautiful heritage of which we are only stewards for our successors.  We must save it for the future.  As has been said more than once in the last couple of days, heritage is irreplaceable.  It is unique and what makes our local world what it is.  People like Mr Ward who on the surface appreciate it, but are willing to give in to peer pressure have lost their real connection to the purpose of what all this is for.  Infrastructure should exist to serve communities.  When the communities become no more than means to the ends of the infrastructure, then society has been turned upside down and lost its way.  Only by challenging the destructive assumptions of those who always try to tell us ‘you can’t have progress without loss’ should look at themselves and ask what they are sacrificing, and what they are asking others to sacrifice?  It is too easy to demand others give up what they have for ‘the common good’.  This is often no more than an excuse to rip people off.

Conservation Objections to Planning Applications in Headingley, Weetwood and Hyde Park and Woodhouse

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.
 

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.

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 19^th 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 19^th 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.