The Bums' Rush

By January 1994 it was clear that the original Berkshire Plan was in serious difficulties. Not only was the traffic gyratory shown to be unsafe, but the Campaign was close to linking the LDC Chairman's pecuniary interests at Shadwell with the LDC board decsion to invite the original 1993 planning application. Letters complaining of maladminstration had been sent to the Secretary of State and to the Chief Executive of the LDC. Although these appeared to have been temporarily sidelined, there was no telling when the issue might boil over once again.

From the developers' viewpoint, a fresh start was urgently required, both to address the intractable traffic problems and to break any links between the LDC Chairman's personal interests and the invitation of the existing planning application. There may have been some slight fear that the land owners might lose faith in Kirkstall Valley Properties' ability to deliver a planning consent, and therefore accept a reduced profit by selling to a conventional housing developer. However, in view of the NRA requirement to raise the entire site above the 100-year flood level if it were developed for housing, it is unlikely that the owners would have made much money if the supermarket were abandoned.

It was time for the property developer to pull out all the stops, and the Kirkstall Valley Campaign got its first experience of "The Bums' Rush".

With hindsight, we were much too complacent, and believed that the issues would be determined by logic and commonsense. Perhaps we still imagined that planning decisions were generally taken in the public interest. Our experiences over the next six months should serve as a dreadful warning to others not to make any such assumptions, and not to be taken by surprise.

There were four basic reasons for our complacency. (1) New planning policy guidance PPG1 had already been issued by the government stressing the primacy of the existing development plan, which allocated site as playing fields and public open space. (2) There was existing guidance in PPG17 on the protection of playing fields. (3) Further guidance was expected shortly in a revised PPG13 on reducing the role of the private car, and the draft was already available. (4) The highway problems in our view really were insuperable, as has subsequently been established.

Leeds City Council had pressed the need for an Environmental Assessment, and challenged the LDC position on shopping policy in relation to the Leeds Unitary Development Plan. Meanwhile, KVC were winning the argument on the job creation claims and the local playing field provision. There had been over 1000 individual written objections from people living in the immediate area, while many of the "letters" in support were photocopied circulars signed by people living remote from the site who, some of whom were too drunk to remember what they had done. There was no rational argument for approving a supermarket development, and a host of solid planning reasons for refusal, not least among which was the LDC commitment during their previous public consultation in 1990 to allow nothing more than "local retail" development at Bridge Road.

In February 1994 it seemed to us inconceivable that LDC would grant a planning approval at Bridge Road. We were not prepared for the possibility that they would simply abandon rational debate, ignore everything that had previously taken place, and perversely issue an approval in the face of all reasoned argument to the contrary.

In January 1994 Councillor Illingworth finally discovered the names of the Trustees of the PAH Hartley 1972 Settlement by studying the compulsory purchase documentation for the Leeds Outer Ring Road improvements, which was the subject of a Public Inquiry. He therefore wrote to Rawlinson and Hunter in St Helier, Jersey, inquiry about the beneficiaries of the trust. At the time we had no idea that Kirkstall Valley Properties Ltd were also based at the London office of Rawlinson & Hunter, having failed to notice the entry in the company registration documents. After sending them a reminder, Rawlinson & Hunter replied, declining to identify the beneficiaries of the PAH Hartley 1972 Settlement. It could only be a matter of time, however, before somebody noticed the apparent connection between the applicants for planning permission and the Chairman of the Planning Authority.

There is no proof that Ray Palmer was made aware of these events, but his approach to the problem was faultless. Within days of Illingworth's letter arriving in Jersey, Kirkstall Valley Properties Ltd changed their accountants and their registered office address. On 14 February 1994 Mr Palmer applied pressure to LDC in a letter which threatened to appeal against the non-detemination of his original 1993 application 99-24/8/93/OT, unless the LDC supported his revised proposals. Such appeal would force a Public Inquiry, at which the local residents were likely to wash the LDC's dirty linen in public. Shortly afterwards, on 25 February, Kirkstall Valley Properties made a new application for a supermarket consent at Bridge Road, as different as possible to the one considered previously.

The new planning application, 99-24/4/94/OT, was confined to the former Waddington's site. In this way Mr Palmer sought to establish the principle of supermarket development, without the complications introduced by the rugby club vice-presidents and the Chairman's interest at Shadwell. The supermarket was exactly the same size, and in more or less the same position, but it did not require any rugby club land. His excuse for the change of tack (given in a letter to the LDC Chief Executive, Mr Eagland) was that the existing landowner was threatening to sell to a house-builder. [It seems unlikely that this was a serious problem, because of the negligible profit on such a development.] The new application fell just below the size thresholds for an environmental assessment given in DoE circular 15/88, and would be more difficult for Leeds City Council to oppose because it resembled the original Peel supermarket applications in 1987 - 88.

Meanwhile, confidential negotiations were in progress between Leeds Rugby Union Football Club, Kirkstall Valley Properties and members of the LDC board, and a further planning application 99-24/6/94/OT was submitted on 16 March 1994. This included the both the Waddingtons' site and the rugby club land. Both schemes required extensive highway works, but instead of the failed gyratory system there was a "two way link" in the same position between Commercial Road and Bridge Road.

The developer's strategy was to start with the thin end of the wedge. First they sought permission for their smallest scheme on the derelict Waddington's site with minimal road works and no environmental assessment. Then they enlarged it to cover the whole site, including the playing fields, having previously established the principle of retail development, but without giving full details of the road works. Finally, having secured outline planning consent for the whole site, they began to enlarge the scale of the road works, until these were eventually larger and more extensive than those on the original 1993 planning application.

The argument at each stage was that "a lttle bit more won't hurt". At the same time the developer offered his usual "cherry" of so-called 'community playing fields' - this time on the surplus rugby club land.

The offer cost him very little, since there was a limit to the floorspace that could be approved in 1994, and an escape clause permitted further development at a later stage. These "replacement playing fields" were less than half the area of the originals. In a brilliant presentational move, the "before" and "after" drawings for the proposed development were plotted on different scales, making the replacement pitches appear much larger than they really were. The pitches were owned by the supermarket operator, and leased for 99 years to Leeds RUFC. The rugby club and the supermarket controlled the lettings. Although the pitches were ostensibly for community use, Leeds RUFC could use them itself if necessary and there was no legal obligation to accept bookings from any other teams. The section 106 agreement covering these pitches is a legal masterpiece, giving the appearance of community use, while providing the maximum leverage for the owner and tenant in any future negotiations with the successor planning authority.

Meanwhile, the developer perfected a novel technique of "continuous amendment" which we suspect may become a standard method to bypass the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Acts. The original Berkshire Plan had already been amended several times, but this was nothing compared with the changes to its successors. The drawings were incomplete as originally submitted, and fresh plans were added or substituted every few days during the public consultation periods, making it almost impossible for the public to be properly informed about the developer's intentions, or to make any reasoned objection to his schemes. Instead of placing the revisions on public deposit in the normal way, they were handed directly to Leeds City Council highway officers, or to the LDC office which was almost inaccessible to the public. Maximum advantage was taken of the Easter holidays to keep the plans from public scrutiny during the consultation period. The planning authority could prevent this abuse of the planning process if they were so minded, but the wording of the legislation is weak, and if they fail to act then the public have no protection whatsoever. In the present case even LDC got into a muddle, and one scheme was re-advertised as a result, but this only added to the confusion, and ensured that relatively few objections would be received.

The LDC board approved the smallest "supermarket only" application on 6 May 1994. Itwas a departure from the Statutory Development Plan, and the scheme was delayed for several weeks awaiting DoE approval before the LDC issued a written consent. The larger, "compromise scheme" was approved by the board in July 1994. In this case there was an even longer interval before the written consent was issued on 2nd February 1995. A reserved matters application 99-24/4/95/RM was submitted the following day, and approved by the board on 16 March 1995. There were hundreds of amendments to the reserved matters application, which continued even after it had been approved by the LDC board, with the result that several of the approved drawings are mutually inconsistent, showing the same feature in more than one position. This did not seem to trouble the LDC officers, who issued the reserved matters consent in the afternoon of 29 March 1995, the very last day of the Corporation's existence.