There has been local outrage at Leeds City Council's attempt to slip these planning applications under the radar by not including them in the main Transport and Works Act Order application for the trolleybus, even though they are clearly for that purpose, being included on th e NGT website.
I have copied my objection to these below in order that those who haven't the time to go through these in detail (for instance I have examined most of these on Google Earth as well as the linked maps). There is very inadequate explanation of these, one only has six words, so it takes a lot of studying of the maps in order to work out what is intended, and even then it is not always clear.
So there is a broad template here that you can refer to and develop your own objections from. These are supposed to be in by Saturday 9th Nov 2013 so you need to get them in soon.
Also I have had to give the email address of a representative of Leeds Legal Services as the NGT page does not give an email address for response, only a ground address, which is being slightly unhelpful in my own view. I have rung them and asked for a proper address to be put on their page, but it has not happened yet.
Any person who wishes to object to the proposed appropriation should
submit written representations to Legal Services, Leeds City Council,
Civic Hall, Leeds, LS1 1UR.
Quoting
Ref A76/DO/094793 by no later than the 9th
day of November 2013.
FAO Leeds Legal Services.
c/o
Sarah.Blenkin@leeds.gov.uk
Dear
Ms Blenkin,
I am writing to you to object to all 9 of the Open Space
Appropriations
http://www.ngtmetro.com/Open_Space_Appropriation/
recently published, since there is no email address on the
page where I found the information below and I have been advised that
objections addressed to you will be registered.
Firstly may I say that they are badly numbered. For
instance,
is Site 7
is Site 1, and so on, and there are two pages with 'Site 6'
or '6' on them
Several of the sites are referred to as a 'small strip of
land'. I do not believe that a strip such as Site 1 (Parcel 2) which
appears to be approximately a quarter of a mile long can be legitimately called
'small'.
Site 8 Parcel 4 (0.3mb pdf) is apparently 173
meters long. This may be narrow, but it is not 'small'
The loss of public amenity applies to Parcels 1 to 4 all of
which are open green space whose amenity to the public would be lost or
degraded, including Parcel 3
(0.3mb pdf) and this is
unacceptable on a mere Planning Committee decision.
I object to these applications.
Woodhouse Moor
Sites 3, 4 and 6 Parcel 5 (0.5mb pdf) and Parcel 6 (0.5mb pdf)
are park and of immense amenity value to the local population
for over a century. It is utterly unacceptable that these should be
appropriated on a simple planning committee decision. This is a conservation area and the most
heavily used park in Leeds. I object to these applications.
The row of trees
along the grass verge is included within the delineated area which goes up to
the modern low railing. This would
appear to suggest the possibility of their felling which must not be
allowed. There are over twenty trees
along this line, over half of which are of significant age. The land take also includes trees in an open
area of both grass and pavement at the Hyde Park end by the sports areas, which
is also an area of social amenity that would be lost.
The loss of this
strip would denude the side of the park. The inner tarmac paved pathway is popular with
joggers and to reduce to one pavement alone would probably be unsafe for normal
pedestrians at peak times. If this was
taken a new path would need to be made within the new edge of Woodhouse Moor
and the oldest public park in Leeds would be eroded where there is already the
widest section of road on the A660 between the University and West Park. Even if the NGT scheme went ahead this land
would not be needed, or at least not under the plans given so far in
submission.
The wide York Stone paving all along this side is a
fine piece of street architecture and probably has conservation
status. It is most attractive and is
accompanied by a grass verge which raises the inner path to a higher level than
the road and provides a suitable buffer between the park and the busy road, besides which it is one of the principle and busiest routes
on foot from the University to Hyde Park, Woodhouse and Headingley. If
this land were to be appropriated for road use, then a similar width of land
would need to be taken from Woodhouse Moor to replace the pavement. This
is no less than simply attempting to take parkland for road and not even having
the decency to include it in the main plans for the trolleybus route which
would subject it to a public enquiry. It is dishonourable in the extreme.
This whole piece of land is most attractive and strongly mitigates the impact of a busy road passing by it besides which it is one of the principle and busiest routes on foot from the University to Hyde Park, Woodhouse and Headingley.
It is not clear from Parcel 5 (0.5mb
pdf) why the land on Monument Moor has been included. Has there been an increase in desired land
take over and above the already submitted applications? Are any trees included? I object to this application.
The small road at the top of this page (either site 3 or 6,
it is not clear which) is unnecessary.
It would go through some green space and a children’s playground besides
several mature trees some of which are quite likely as old as the layout of the
Moor itself. Since none of the trees are
notated in the maps given it is not clear which ones are threatened, however,
there are 4 mature trees of at least a century vintage and probably
significantly more where the proposed new road would come out on Woodhouse
street, and another where the new road would meet Woodhouse Cliff. At a time when tree loss and climate change
is such a concern, felling mature trees of this quality should not be
considered.
All of these ‘appropriations’ are for the purpose of the
trolleybus. Why were they not included
in the application for the Transport and Works Act Order? And why were they not mentioned at either of
the Plans Panel full day sessions in June and October? There has been much discussion of the route
over Monument Moor, but not one mention of the land grab on the south side of
Woodhouse Lane which is clearly intended for an expansion of the road into
another lane for the trolleybus and traffic ‘stacking’.
There is no substantive difference between these and any
other of the planning applications made over this, except that these are green
space.
Site 9 I object to
this application. This is a piece of
green space in an extremely built up area and should be preserved. The building of a road would not only take
out valuable car parking space but the access to the main road would almost
certainly disrupt traffic flow on it.
Traffic flow is to my understanding one of the primary reasons for this
ill advised scheme, so for road alterations which interrupt that flow seems
contrary to common sense.
Site 5 An already
immensely built up area, I object to this application. It needs no more buildings on the limited
green spaces. I imagine that this
application would not be necessary should the intention have been only to plant
trees on it.
This is labelled Site 6, although Parcel 5 (0.5mb
pdf)
Also has a ‘6’ on it.
I am referring to the application to take land from Belle
Isle Circus. I object to this
application. This is parkland with semi
mature trees. It is absolutely
unacceptable to take this parkland merely on a planning committee decision, and
should not in principle be considered as it is land which belongs to the
community. There is at least one park
bench on the land which is directly in the path of the intended route and this
is quite clearly a public amenity which would be lost and for which there could
be no local replacement.
Finally, I should like to complain that there has been no
email address placed on the NGT site where I found these links. http://www.ngtmetro.com/Open_Space_Appropriation/
I spoke to a Mr Hacker about this today, and although he
assured me he would put an email address on the page, this has not happened. In an era when we are all encouraged to use
email instead of paper, it is absolutely unacceptable to be posting pages such
as these without a proper response form as is usually the case with planning
applications or even an email address which one may make one’s objections
too. This following, I believe it was,
34 conservation and listed building applications which needed to be responded
to. The way this has been handled is such
that it is either incompetent or it has been constructed so as to minimise the
likelihood that objections would be registered.
Yours sincerely,
..........
No comments:
Post a Comment