NOTES OF PUBLIC MEETING AT KIRKSTALL MIDDLE SCHOOL AT 7.30 P.M.- ON TUESDAY, 29TH NOVEMBER 1988, CALLED BY THE U.D.C. TO DISCUSS THE OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY MOUNTLEIGH NORTHERN LIMITED, WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE KIRKSTALL VALLEY. APPLICATION NO. 88/26/00368

MEMBERS OF U.D.C. BOARD PRESENT: JOHN JACKSON, DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD (MEETING CHAIRMAN) MARTIN EAGLAND (CHIEF EXECUTIVE), JOHN WATSON, BARONESS LOCKWOOD, EDWARD HOLROYD, JOHN HARDMAN, DAVID RICHARDSON.

John Jackson - The purpose of the Meeting was to hear comments from the public regarding Mountleigh's proposals for the Kirkstall Valley. He introduced Board Members and pointed out that the UDA had a life of four years and seven months to run and was responsible to Government Ministers for 1,340 acres of land in Leeds, as Local Planning Authority. The objectives of the UDA were to secure new jobs and improve the environment.

The arrangements for development of this land had been established before the arrival of the UDC. The LCDC, CEGB and Mountleigh together owned most of the site. The ideals and proposals for the development were formulated jointly by Mountleigh and the LCDC. In September the City Council had approved development of the area in principle. LDC favoured a comprehensive scheme with improvements to highways, public access and the river and the canal.

The Board had come to hear and discuss with local residents their views on the development proposals. Further work by the developers was under way and views of the public would be considered by the Board on 20th December. An Environmental Assessment was in preparation and should be ready by the second week of January, 1989. Its receipt will be advertised and there will be a twenty-one day period for objections and comments. The application must be advertised as a Departure and the Secretary of State will be notified of this and also if the development proposes more than 25,000 sq ft of retail floor space. The Secretary of State may call the application in on either count. The Board Meeting scheduled for 23rd February would be the earliest possible date for a decision, although it was anticipated that one would not be made for some time after this date.

(Cries from the public - "who elected you?")

Councillor Illingworth - The decision to select Mountleigh as the developer was taken by very few Councillors. Previously Planning Committee had agreed to a small development on the CEGB site. An Environmental Assessment was very important. Members had not appreciated that the development as proposed would involve the movement of 2 million tonnes of fly-ash and considerable loss of wildlife. Members had not had time to consider the implications of traffic generation figures. Robert West & Partners and HECS had provided him with information on projected traffic flows and were available to the meeting. He said Mountleigh's proposals would not be railroaded through. (Applause).

Mr A Douglas (Armley Industrial Museum Groundsman) - He pointed out his interest in wildlife in the area. Three pairs of kingfishers lived on the site and these were Schedule 1 birds. wildlife had prospered since the CEGB land had been left undeveloped. There was a badger set on the site, two pairs of badgers had been put into it. The river was too fast-flowing to be any use for ducks.

Councillor McKenna - Two thirds of the site was in Armley Ward. What arrangements had been made for consulting Armley folk? (Mr Jackson confirmed that there would be a public consultation meeting held in Armley too).

Malcolm Povey - There was nothing in the plan to benefit local folk. He compared Mountleigh as a company to the lost world of the dinosaur. There was an asbestos dump on the CEGB site. Seven generations of children had been brought up and used Kirkstall Middle School. Why couldn't Mountleigh use their money to build a new school and provide green space for local people?

Jack Lamb - What am I going to do with large numbers of vehicles moving in front of my house? 200 coaches a day could be using the site with-two million visitors a year. I don't want them parking outside my house!

Mike Cook - I moved up to Leeds from London two years ago to escape this kind of development and pressure. Look what I moved into! He expressed great concern over the loss of open space.

Mr Wilson (Farmer) - He pointed out that he was at the centre of the argument. He had spent 14 years of his life improving the quality of his land. He employed 6 men and wanted to expand his business and produce more food. The development would destroy his livelihood. He was now 55 years old and hadn't enough time left to establish his business on another site. why was a nature reserve needed? The whole valley was a nature reserve! (Cheers and applause) There were 77 species of birds, including owls, kestrel and kingfishers. Fish abounded in the water courses and in the morning you could see Reynard the fox returning from his hunt. He didn't want fly-ash from Armley dumped on his land. (Applause).

Councillor Minkin (addressing the Board) .- Don't wriggle out of your responsibility. (Cheers and applause).

Councillor Atha - The Secretary of State must be asked to come forward with a proposal to benefit the people. We must keep a park at the centre of the site. We are not to be vandalised. There is a difference between land not developed and land that is derelict. The Kirkstall Valley is completely different from the central UDC area. If the Board was concerned they would sit down with us in a creative way. If the site was to be desecrated now, it would be lost forever. (Applause).

------- (Resident) - I have lived in Kirkstall and in the city all my life. If the site is to be developed I want to. see more housing than retail.

J Storey - I have lived in the valley all my life. We need no more retail in the area than we have got already. New shopping will create ten times more traffic. We want jobs with training - small industrial units, computer companies. As Leeds is the financial capital of the north we need to keep small businesses in the area to serve the city centre. Existing buildings should be converted for small firms. We must keep Burley and Armley Mills.

David Thompson - The traffic figures are just now available. A recent Department of Transport review has indicated that traffic studies can have an error of 20%. Do these figures allow for the worst case?

Steve Kind (Kirkstall Valley Campaign) This is the first public consultation exercise of the UDC. It is going to make a decision in-principle before they get the Environmental Assessment and any further public consultation takes place. Mountleigh said they would go some way to make more sensitive proposals - they split the retail area and increased the floor space! At the insistence of the Chairman of the UDC the retailing has been now moved back to the centre of the' site. Fertile land buried under rubble and lost forever. It will drive all,, the wildlife out of the valley and destroy the ecology of the area. We are not opposed to all development in the valley. We want to see it confined to existing derelict areas - the CEGB land and John Waddington site. We have our alternative plans ready. The proposed EYE nature reserve is meaningless if only an island is left. Development must make the best of the natural resources of the land. 5,000 car parking spaces and 1,200 traffic movements per day would be disastrous. The green wedge is sacred to Leeds. (Cheers and clapping for 2 minutes!)

Geoff Hodgson (Kirkstall Valley Campaign) - Do your homework UDC! You have contempt for the people in the area. You are a non-elected quango. Do what we want! Mountleigh have put forward a grim, lousy plan. It is not enough simply to make money. Stop treating people with contempt! Who are the retailers? Our information has "been leaked by a mole". (Cheers and stamping)

John Jackson - Profit has nothing to do with us, it is a matter for developers - we have nothing to do with the developers who are listening to you! (Jeers and shouting)

Mr Marsh - Are you really going to listen to us? Are you going to come back here again and justify your decisions? (Cheers)

Mr Croaker - What is your involvement with the Council? Why does everything need to be developed?

-------- (Resident) - Has Mountleigh any experience of working in the area? Have they ever built anything? Do they really have a long-term interest in the future of the valley? Development should be designer not profit led.

Richard Smith - The proposal is a botched planner's dream based on market principles. The development should provide the facilities that people really need. (Applause).

D Simpson .(Leeds Urban Wildlife Group) - We are all frustrated because you are not giving us any replies to our questions. How binding on you is the environmental impact assessment?

Martin Eagland (Chief Executive. UDC) - He referred to the EEC Directive. He assured the meeting that all factors will be taken into account by the UDC, especially the EIA study.

Rosie Atkins -,She was worried about the proposed Marina in the canal and the effect it would have on wildlife. She was anxious to keep the traditional feel and identity of retail centres in the area. Some years ago whilst at University, she had researched the EIA techniques and said that there was a wide disparity between a theoretical EIA done by "experts" and the quality of information available from local people, especially about wildlife in the area.

Marian Cole - She was worried about trouble and congestion caused by increases in road traffic. As an elderly person it was essential for due allowance to be made for people to get access to homes in the area.

Alan Livermore (Local businessman) There are a number of existing freehold sites remaining in the area. Will you CPO them?

John Jackson - We have not considered CPO powers at this stage.

Muriel Knowles (Newlay Conservation Society) - Why is Mrs Thatcher interested in development in the Kirkstall Valley? Has she seen the view from Gotts Park? We need to keep the valley clear of development. No more supermarkets! (Cheers).

Wendy Bucklin - Raised fears about road traffic and possible routing of a motorway through the valley. Mr Douglas (Armley Industrial Museum Groundsman) stood up and outlined HECS current thinking for transportation through the area. He sounded well briefed.

Ann Wise - Will you commit yourself to give us some answers, we want to listen to you!! (Much cheering and jeering).

John Jackson He invited groups of interested local residents to visit them at South Point.

Martin Eagland - He summarised some of the comments made by speakers to the UDC and said that they were willing to look at alternative proposals for development in the area.

SUMMARY

Details of the alternative plans drafted by the Kirkstall Valley Campaign have yet to be discussed by residents, about 350 of whom turned up for the meeting. The meeting overwhelmingly rejected Mountleigh's proposals claiming they did not serve the people who lived in the valley and would destroy much of its wildlife. There were calls to end any more shopping developments and car parks which threatened to destroy the open spaces and ruin the quality of the environment. The speakers often repeated that they were not opposed to all development and welcomed the chance of new jobs, especially in light industry, so long as it did not destroy the ecology of the area.

Circulation: JSK, NK, DL, PJV, DS, JS, AB, Councillor Walker

AJH/JB/1.12.88

Notes prepared by AJ Hull (LCC planning Officer) of the public meeting held on 29 November 1988 in Kirkstall Middle School