Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 19
June 05 2014
This is now the updated blog of Day 19 (Thursday 05 June 2014) of the Enquiry, which was posted earlier to publish the audio links, while I had not yet completed my blog commentary, which is now added below the links.
The day started with Mrs Pickering picking up her cross
examination of Mr Philip Ward, Conservation Officer for LCC, and she was followed
by Doug Kemp for West Park Residents, Ian Barraclough for the residents of
Headingley Castle, and myself as a private objector on several heritage points.
Since Mr Bill McKinnon for
Friends of Woodhouse Moor, Dawn Carey Jones for North Hyde Park Residents and
Stuart Natkus for Morley House Trust (Leeds Girls’ High School) were not
available on Thursday, Mr Ward was allowed to stand down for the remainder of
the day and Mr Sean Flesher, Head of Parks and Countryside, LCC took the stand
and was cross examined by Chris Foren for the A660 Joint Council (Coalition of
Residents’ Associations along the A660) who focussed largely on the question of
Headingley Meadows and the proposed ‘pocket park’.
Commentary on the day will be
added below the links.
In the first morning session of day 19 of the Leeds
Trolleybus Enquiry, June 05 2014, Mrs Helen Pickering continues with her cross
examination of Mr Philip Ward, focussing on the assessment of cumulative
impacts along the several conservation areas which would be affected by NGT and
following this with questions about the archaeological surveys which have been
limited to desk based assessment and have not involved any actual examinations
on the ground.
In the late morning session of
day 19 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, June 05 2014 the cross examination of
Mr Philip Ward, head of the Conservation department at Leeds City Council is
continued, first by Doug Kemp for West Park Residents' Association on visual
impacts in the West Park Conservation Area, and then he is followed by Mr Ian
Barraclough for the residents of Headingley Castle on the impact that the
trolleybus would have on the its beautiful parkland setting of this Grade 2
listed building.
In the early afternoon session of
day 19 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, June 05 2014, Claire Randall
takes the seat to cross examine Mr Philip Ward of LCC Conservation Dept on a
number of aspects of the whole site along the wall up Headingley Lane to
Headingley Hill, follows this with examination of whether he could support his
statement of an aging tree stock then asks to what degree the heritage should
acknowledge the value to local culture of such important former local residents
as JRR Tolkien and extends this into an examination of whether the Heritage
methodology acknowledges the concept of the spiritual value of nature and trees
as understood in cultural anthropology of many diverse sources from animistic
pagan to mainstream religions.
In the late afternoon session of day 19 of the
Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, June 05 2014, Mr Sean Flesher, LCC Chief Parks and
Countryside Officer is introduced to the Enquiry and Mr Walton for the
Applicant takes him through his evidence and is then followed by Gregory Jones
QC who cross examines on the loss of playing fields and public amenity. The final portion of the session is
contributed by Chris Foren of the A660 Joint Council who begins his cross
examination by examining the loss of green space that would be incurred if a
trolleybus route were to go across Headingley Meadows and questions the
suggestion that a new 'pocket park' between trolleybus and main road would be
an improvement to public amenity and suggests that it is more bureaucratic
doublespeak which seeks to turn a detriment into a gain through sleight of
hand.
One of the principle matters that
I have noticed coming up again and again with different cross examinations of
Mr Ward is the low rating of impacts.
My understanding from Mrs Pickering was that she established that if an
impact on an area was say ‘moderate’ but that others were assessed as ‘minor’
then the assessment for the entire area would be ‘moderate’, rather than having
it ‘averaged down’. In other words, the
most significant impact is the one that should determine the assessment. This is an important part of the ‘cumulative
effects’ on areas. Among the objectors,
we have all been concerned that a large number of impacts have been assessed as
less than we would have expected them to be, and so the averaging down is an
even worse example of the same things.
Getting this acknowledged and rectified is an important point for the
Enquiry. (I have listened to all this,
but there is so much detail, and many complicated references to both standard
documents and those which are referred to from both English Heritage and the
NPPF guidance texts, that I am obliged to take my understanding from my private
discussions. This is often the case
with such an immense amount of detail, much of it technical, and should anyone
listen to the online recordings and reach a different understanding then I am
happy to take comments and refer back to the recordings for the purpose of
correction.)
She also went on to establish
that no field assessment of archaeological evidence had been made within the
Headingley Hill fields within the Conservation Area, even though Mr Ward
believed that this was unnecessary and that the desk based assessments had been
adequate. It was also established that
should archaeological remains be found at a later stage if the NGT scheme went
ahead, then they would have to be dealt with as and when they were found. To objectors it is quite incredible that no
on site examinations have been carried out on a site which could have remains
buried. I am told by the lady who
grazes the horses on these fields that she has found fragments on this land
which she believes could be of interest.
An on site evaluation would be helpful, especially with ground
penetrating radar or other non invasive examinations such as many of us have
seen used on Time Team.
Doug Kemp for West Park Residents
established a number of instances in the West Park Conservation Area where the
overhead lines would be noticeable visual intrusions. A particular point which is related to one I drew attention to in
my short cross examination of Mr Haskins in the second week was the failure of
the photomontages to include all details such as these overhead cables. A fair number of these and actual
photographs of the locations concerned were put on the projector screen and we
were able to see in detail exactly what Mr Kemp was drawing attention to.
Visual impacts on Headingley
Castle were gone into by Mr Ian Barraclough and we were interested to hear that
the fact that the curtilage is split between different owners was considered as
material to the Applicant, whereas Mr Barraclough pointed out that this was as
a matter of no importance and that the curtilage was still recognisable.
Again and again we find that the
Applicant is downplaying the value of assets, and this continues in later cross
examinations.
Before I mention my own cross
examination I should mention Chris Foren’s session with Mr Sean Flesher of
Parks. The presentation of the ‘Pocket
Park’ as an improvement from the point of view of the Council strikes me as one
of the most extreme absurdities in the Enquiry so far. The space between Headingley Lane and
Headingley Lane is a marvellously unaffected space with its mature trees and
open meadow above St Columba’s Church, which whilst it is held on private
ownership is purposely left open to the public. The term ‘permissive’ was used as opposed to formally
public. While this might not be formal
public space, it is nonetheless a fine space, and has ‘de facto’ public
access. As I have stated in the audio
link blurbs above, the location of a public space would squeezed between two
roads. To suggest that this would be an
attractive space is frankly absurd in my own view, sandwiched as it would be
between two roads. To argue that the
space would be an improvement simply because it would be designated as a public
park is legalistic advantage taking and bears no real relation to the actual
nature of the land. We see this over
and over again that some physical detriment is turned through spin and
‘mitigation’ into an improvement, when a real person would see the actual
change and have little interest in the bureaucratic reclassification. I am reminded of Mr Orwell’s 1984 in which
‘Truth is lies’, and where history is continually being rewritten to the extent
where no-one is able to remember what really happened. A small patch of green bordered by roads
with trolleybuses going past every three minutes would apparently be an
improvement on a stretch of parkland with mature Victorian planted trees. The world is becoming a place of madness
when such nonsense is promoted as truth.
My own cross examination dealt
with a number of issues along the stretch of Headingley Lane up to Headingley
Hill which I will leave to readers to catch up on, and concentrate on the
closing stages of my examination. I
focussed on the ‘communal value’ of our local heritage. I am most grateful to Helen Pickering for
bringing this concept, taken from English Heritage, into the debate as it gave
greater weight to my own position, that the culture of the area which has built
up over many generations is an intangible but very real part of the area. Had I not been able to refer to this, a
document establishing it having been just mentioned, my argument might have
been treated less sympathetically by the Inspectors. I am glad that I was able to mention the presence of Professor
Tolkien as a significant part of our local heritage as not only I, as a local
historian of the Professor, but a large number of others feel his presence.
This allowed me then to lead to
my final point about the importance of the feeling of spirituality in nature as
understood in cultural anthropology.
Once more I am indebted to Mrs Pickering for helping contextualise a
concept I introduced; in this case to establish its weight and importance
through embedding it in the discipline of anthropology.
Supporters of the trolleybus make
accusations of ‘nimbyism’ at me all the time on their own pages and they will
probably take the same view on this topic I just mentioned. I regret that such narrow and philistine
attitudes prevail amongst the backwaters of opinion found on the internet.
However I am reassured that even
in the parlous state of today’s democracy we are able to debate all the issues
raised by such a major development as NGT.
This project would cost the taxpayer at least a quarter of a billion
pounds and major destruction would be necessitated, and yet internet critics
seem to think that this is something which should just be pushed through, and
people such as myself who oppose it are characterised as ‘nimbies’ without any
consideration of the arguments which are given either by myself in this blog,
which result from the examinations of witnesses at the Enquiry, or the
substantive arguments presented by Gregory Jones QC which cast many doubts on
the competence of the NGT scheme and its viability.
I was disappointed to see that
one of these internet critics whose comments I saw on a site which I found
through my analytics page said that they had tried to listen to the Enquiry
audios but it was too slow, so they gave up.
Haste is one of the great evils of the modern world in my view. These are weighty matters which we are
exploring at the Enquiry, and ones which would affect not only Headingley but
the whole of Leeds for generations to come, and in some ways in perpetuity. They need lengthy and serious consideration,
not simple twitter responses. I am
fairly certain that the Inspectors will not be following the twitter exchanges,
and I would be concerned if they did.
It would be inappropriate for them to follow my blog of course, but you
will certainly learn more about the deliberations of the Public Enquiry from
this blog than from any twitter exchange, whether you agree with my opinions or
not, since I refer to actual facts of the Enquiry on which I make comment. In many ways this is just a gateway and
introduction to the audio recordings.
If you really want to make an informed decision, listen to them,
especially those in which Mr Jones cross examines, and you will (in my view)
gain an insight into the flimsy and highly flawed nature of the NGT
proposals.
One reason I am engaged in making
these audios is that I believe the evidence which is coming to light is
strongly supporting the case of the Objectors.
If the supporters are so keen on the NGT scheme then they should believe
that the evidence will show it in a positive light. However, NGT’s attempt to withhold the consultation responses
doesn’t encourage one to believe that they believe the public support the
scheme. Either way I am putting all the
evidence in the public domain through the unpaid time of my colleagues and myself. No good deed goes unpunished as they say.
This is why I will not engage
with critics on twitter. Twitter is an
extremely useful tool for putting out brief soundbites and I have been most
grateful to have such a free platform to put out announcements of the
publication of the audio recordings and indeed of this blog. But to suggest that I am avoiding debate by
refusing to engage in soundbite captions on twitter is desperation in the
extreme. I will not trawl the internet
to find sites where people are discussing my blog behind my back. It reminds me of spiteful children who
gossip among themselves ‘Ooh, you know what so and so said?’ I have invited such critics to post comments
on my page, but so far I have had none.
Perhaps this is because I have stated that all comments are moderated,
and in view of the kind of comments I see on the Tbus supporters page at
skyscrapercity, then I believe I am wise to do so.
I will not accept comments which
name call, and ‘nimby’ is name calling.
Serious comments which engage with what I have said will be taken
seriously, but facetious attempts to engage me in snide backbiting exchanges
will not be. For the interest of those
who believe I am against this happening in my back yard, I should point out
that I live about a mile from the route, which in my own estimate does not put
it in my backyard. Indeed, as well as
pointing out the loss to local character and heritage which would be incurred
by the destruction of hundreds of trees along the route, several houses and the
compulsory purchase of gardens in West Park, I have also drawn special
attention to what would be imposed on the Whitfields, a community of which I
was not aware until the trolleybus scheme came into my world and I heard about
it a year or so ago. Whilst I did live
for a term in Hunslet Grange flats some forty years ago in my first year as a
student, I don’t think that can be held against me in my concern for the
Whitfields, which I have now visited.
I have invited internet critics
to engage with me on this page but they have preferred not to, although I
continue to see a particular page referenced in my statistical analytics, so I
know they are coming here! Then
apparently they go back to their ghetto and bitch about how biased I am. Sorry folks, I am supervising and managing
the recording and upload of usually four recordings on each day of the Enquiry
(with the assistance of fellow objectors without whom I would be unable to do
this) and following them with a daily blog.
For my trouble I am accused of stifling debate because I won’t make
trite replied in 140 characters or less.
Really! I simply don’t have time
to get into their pages. This is where
my comments are hosted, and that is where replies should be posted. Sniping behind my back is cowardly and those
who do it marginalise themselves because their comments will not be seen by my
hundred or so daily readers on this site.
Perhaps my critics should apply
their time to lobbying the BBC and other mainstream media news sources to cover
this extremely important enquiry. It is
a matter of some interest to me that the national broadcasting provider is
ignoring such an important event as this enquiry. I have to ask why this is the case for such a major issue. I cannot help but believe that there is some
policy that has been taken by the BBC, and perhaps other media institutions to
ignore or at least play down the importance of this Public Enquiry. If anyone in the BBC should wish to
challenge me on this I would be happy to engage with them. I am sure they could take the trouble to
contact me if they believe that what I am suggesting is entirely untrue. I would aver that they are neglecting their
public duty to inform. I may say that
this kind of thing is the reason why three years ago I gave up my tv license
and haven not watched broadcast television since.
I would thank all my readers for
their attention and look forward to having them to continue to follow my audio
recordings and this blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment