CONTROVERSIAL plans to build a security fence at a Guiseley school have been put on hold for city councillors to visit the site.
The proposal at Guiseley Infant School has come under fire from residents who claim it would close off a section of land used by the community.
And this week members of the Leeds plans west sub-committee supported their argument.
Committee chairman Councillor Jim McKenna said he had received a number of objections to the bid.
"It seems to me that local people do make a point about the fencing which, while the school is wanting to make the area safe, does seem to be taking in a lot of common land where other youngsters play."
Despite hearing that officers were recommending they should approve the plan, Coun McKenna insisted on looking carefully at the situation.
"I feel there must be another solution and perhaps we could look into that if we held a site visit," he said.
Residents living near the Oxford Road school say the 1.8m high fence, with a 2.2m high wall and fence, not only cordons off land but could also cause potential traffic problems.
One high-profile campaigner is Philip Pratt, who has lobbied Leeds City Council to refuse the application. He says the fence would be an 'eyesore'.
But a school governor claims Mr Pratt actually asked the school to put up a fence along its boundary five years ago.
John Batchelor, who still has a copy of the letter sent in 1994, said: "Why, if Mr Pratt is so against the fence, did he write to the planning authority in 1994 demanding that they meet their responsibilities and erect a fence?
Mr Batchelor said the school was keen to build the fence to ensure the safety of children and staff, and to keep the land clean and fit for use.
"The school has tried to consult with local residents even if we were not locally required to, in order to maintain good relations with them," he added.
Mr Pratt said he could not remember asking for a fence to be put up five years ago and pledged to continue his opposition to the latest scheme.
Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article