neighbourhood plan. - leeds np... · shadwell parish council neighbourhood planning meeting...

.SHADWELL

Neighbourhood Plan.

CONSULTATION STATEMENT

Appendices

Contents

Appendix A. Early Stages

A1. Newsletter cover for meeting on 25th June 2012

A2. Minutes of 25th June 2012 Meeting

A3. SHLAA map

A4. SHLAA 2018 list and status

A5. Extracts from Parish Council minutes

Appendix B. Initial consultation

B1. Survey form

B2. Survey results

Appendix C. Issues and Options consultation

C1. Flyer for event

C2. Questionnaire, analysis and comments

Appendix D. Policy Intentions consultation

D1. Walkabout notes

D2. Questionnaire and Questionnaire results commentary

Appendix E. Pre-submission consultation

E1. Consultation leaflet

E2. Analysis of comments and action taken.

pb

Typewriter

Appendix A1

Shadwell Parish Council

Neighbourhood Planning meeting

25.06.12 at 7.30pm

The Localism Act 2011

• The Localism Bill gained Royal Assent on November 15th 2011. It has now become

an Act of Parliament. The regulations governing neighbourhood planning came into

force on April 6th 2012.

New Planning Powers – Neighbourhood Plans

• Neighbourhood Plans will allow local communities, via a Town or Parish Council or

newly designated Neighbourhood Forum, to set out a vision for an area and planning

policies for the use and development of land. It will be about local rather than

strategic issues. For example it could cover where new shops, offices or homes should

go and what green spaces should be protected and include local design standards such

as the type of materials, scale and character that must be used for any new property.

The plan does need to be compatible with national policies (NPPF) and the policies in

the authority’s local plan (Core Strategy). It should be focused on guiding

development rather than stopping it. If adopted it will become a statutory plan, have

legal status and be used in making decisions on planning applications.

• Neighbourhood development orders (NDOs) can grant planning permission for

specified developments in a neighbourhood area, for example, certain types of

household extensions, shop fronts, ‘green energy’ proposals. Where there is a

neighbourhood development order in place there would be no need to apply to the

council for planning permission for the development it covers.

• Whilst local residents should not be under any illusions that this action would

completely repel all prospective developers (especially on already allocated sites), a

Neighbourhood Plan would allow local communities to genuinely help shape the

areas where they live and work.

• Any Neighbourhood Plan would be subject to both an independent examination and

referendum – where it would need to receive 50% of vote share – as well as being in

“general conformity” with the local plan (in this case the council’s Core Strategy). If

accepted and ratified by a referendum any Neighbourhood Plan would become part of

the Local Development Framework (LDF) and have real legal weight as a statutory

document. This legal standing is a key differentiation from existing Supplementary

Planning Documents (SPDs) such as Village Design Statements and Parish Plans,

which are only material considerations in the planning process.

• There are also the perceived financial benefits of producing a Neighbourhood Plan.

By producing a Neighbourhood Plan, communities can effectively offer-up areas of

land for potential development. As part of the government’s drive to encourage new

home building in the absence of the recently defunct Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS),

communities will be eligible for monies from the mooted Community Infrastructure

Levy (CIL). These monies could then be re-invested back into the local community in

pb

Typewriter

Appendix A2

line with aspirations of the Neighbourhood Plan and the associated infrastructure

requirements of any new development.

The national and local context

• National Planning Policy Framework

o The government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) replaces

existing government planning policy including the Regional Spatial Strategy

which previously dictated housing targets (4,300 houses for Leeds – though

there was a shortfall of around 2,000 per year).

o The headline from the NPPF is that there will be a default ‘yes’ to all

sustainable development though there are significant concessions to building

on brownfield land and the importance of neighbourhood planning.

o The emerging Core Strategy will now inform the housing policy for the City.

This replaces the existing Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

o The Core Strategy will form part of a suite of documents known collectively

as the Local Development Framework (LDF).

o Approximately 5,000 homes per year will need to be developed over the next

15 years. The council is currently looking to identifying sites to match this

need (5 years identified as shovel-ready, 5 years for the medium-term, 5 years

for the longer-term). In short, approximately 70,000 dwellings need to be

found.

• The Core Strategy is a significant document that will affect the city on a number of

levels. The matters relating to housing and regeneration need to be closely considered

as they will affect almost every community across Leeds.

• The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) is a forum/tool for

identifying land across the City for possible future development. There are currently

approximately 180,000 dwellings or 760 proposed sites identified in the 2011 SHLAA

- 600 existing (but some updated) and 160 new.

• Approximately 17,500 of these dwellings or 120 proposed sites have been identified

in both Harewood and Wetherby Wards.

• A further SHLAA list is to be produced in 2012 that is not yet publicly available.

• Some of the sites contained in the 2011 SHLAA are on greenbelt land. Many others

on brownfield land. Approximately a third of the listed SHLAA sites could come

forward for development. Other sites that are not on the SHLAA list will also come

forward as the council seeks to identify land for housing.

• It is important to note that there is no longer a requirement for developers to look to

build on brownfield sites first, though this is encouraged in the recently published

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

• The council’s Core Strategy was recently been subject to a consultation exercise that

ended on 13th April 2012. Subsequently, further amendments will be made. In

autumn 2012, the amended Core Strategy will then be submitted to a Government

Inspector for a soundness test. It is anticipated, all being well, that the Core Strategy

will then be fully adopted by the council in spring 2013.

• The Site Allocations Process (SAP) will be developed in tandem with the Core

Strategy. The SAP process – which will outline where houses will actually go in local

communities - will cover four key areas; housing, employment, retail and greenspace.

An initial scoping exercise has commenced on the SAP but this is not anticipated to

be finalised until spring 2013.

• It is during the SAP that any emerging Neighbourhood Plans would come into their

own. The councils planning department is now receptive to the idea that empowered

communities, through Neighbourhood Plans, would effectively take responsibility for

allocating land for development in their own areas.

What’s happening on the ground in Outer North East

• The six pilot parishes are progressing well; Walton Parish Council has produced a

first draft of their Neighbourhood Plan that has been out to consultation.

• A second Neighbourhood Planning Project Board has been established involving the

areas nine remaining Parish Councils, including Shadwell Parish Council.

• At the time of writing 11 Town and Parish Councils in both Harewood and Wetherby

Wards have submitted their intention to produce a Neighbourhood Plan.

• City-wide around 36 groups have expressed a serious interest in neighbourhood

planning. The council has responded, finally, to this challenge by appointing a

dedicated neighbourhood planning team – lead by Ian Mackay – and Ian has

producing a report and detailed guidance note on Neighbourhood Plans that was

passed by the Executive Board on 20.06.12.

• We now know the housing numbers that the Outer North East area collectively has to

fulfil – 4,600 dwellings - though this is allocated via “wedge” (Harewood and

Wetherby Wards) and not by village.

• The Site Allocation process is to start in earnest in the very near future.

Villages/communities across Leeds are being encouraged to put forward their case for

certain housing sites to be considered (and others discounted) in parallel with the

neighbourhood planning process.

• At the time of writing there are 12 SHLAA sites that fall within in Shadwell’s

identified boundary:

o Main Street (off), Cricket Field, Shadwell – 49 dwellings

o Whinmoor Lane, land to the rear of Wainscott Cottage, Shadwell – 58

dwellings

o Colliers Lane (land off), Shadwell – 72 dwellings

o Blind Lane, Shadwell – 61 dwellings

o Manor Farm, Shadwell – 294 dwellings

o Holywell Lane/Bridle Path (land to the east of), Shadwell – 50 dwellings

o Bridle Path Road (land to the north of), Shadwell – 33 dwellings

o Oakhill Cottage Farm, Shadwell – 364 dwellings

o Land rear Gateland Lane, Shadwell – 92 dwellings

o Elmete Lane, Shadwell – 50 dwellings

o Wellington Hill, Shadwell – 64 dwellings

o Rear 268 – 274 Shadwell Lane – 8 dwellings

Total number of dwellings proposed for Shadwell = 1195 units

5022

5341

4166

4018

SHLAA sitesadded post-2012Shown in blue

Post-2012 SHLAA sitesadded to plan by Shadwell PCfor Neighbourhood Plansubmission purposes. 2019

4151

5162

pb

Typewriter

Appendix A3

Leeds Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)

Sites in / adjacent to the Shadwell Neighbourhood Area

Link to SHLAA interactive map: https://leedscc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=960784f41ea54ac39f61e27bad1c56fa

SHLAA Ref

Site Name Capacity Site Allocations Plan (Adopted) Site Assessments

797 East Leeds Extension

4446 Allocated / Identified Housing HG1-288

3119 Hobberley Cottage/the Wellington(ph), Whin Moor Lane, Shadwell

64 Not allocated for housing. Green Belt site containing existing public house, with residential properties to the west and east. The site would lay outside of the East Leeds Orbital Route and would not benefit from a defensible Green Belt boundary. Site would still have the potential for a conversion/redevelopment in line with Green Belt policies.

1288 Land At Manor Farm Shadwell

294 Not allocated for housing. Green belt site. Sieved out at Issues and Options stage. Not within the settlement hierarchy and therefore the location does not align with the spatial development strategy. There is no defensible boundary so very likely to lead to unrestricted sprawl. The site does assist in safegaurding the countryside from encroachment and the site provides access to the countryside. Impact on the setting and special character of the Listed Buildings to the north west corner on the site could be mitigated against through appropriate detailed design however for the reasons above, development of this site would lead to unrestricted urban sprawl.

2059 Oakhill Cottage Farm, Shadwell

363 Not allocated for housing. Green Belt site. The site is considered to have an unacceptable impact on the Green Belt in terms of unrestricted sprawl and failing to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. In particular the site forms part of an important gateway into the countryside from the Ring Road, with views from the Ring Road giving the edge of the main urban area a 'rural feel'. The site also forms part of a defined Urban Green Corridor which is protected by saved UDP policy N8. The development of the site would have a detrimental impact on the function of this Urban Green Corridor. Highway concerns regarding poor accessibility.

https://leedscc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=960784f41ea54ac39f61e27bad1c56fa

pb

Typewriter

Appendix A4

2062 Red Hall Offices & Playing Field

50 Allocated for housing. Majority of site is a UDP employment allocation (key business park) with a small part along the northern boundary being Green Belt. It is now contrary to national and local policy to locate offices away from city and town centres and so it is more appropriate to identify Red Hall as suitable for housing (incorporating on site greenspace provision) than for any other use. The identification of the site as suitable for an allocation is consistent with the long-standing planning principle for its development stretching back over many years. A development brief for the wider site (including HG1-284) is in the latter stages of production, which establishes key development principles.

1056 Cricket Field, Off Main Street, Shadwell

49 Not allocated for housing. Greenbelt site. Sieved out at issues and options stage. Not within the settlement hierarchy and therefore the location does not align with the spatial development strategy. The site has an important role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Protected playing pitch (N6) in the UDP and proposed to be designated as green space in the SAP.

3019 Whinmoor Lane, Shadwell, Leeds

92 Not allocated for housing. Sieved out. Green Belt. Not within settlement hierarchy.

3020 Land Either Side Of Elmete Lane, Shadwell


1286 Land Off Colliers Lane, Shadwell


1287 Land At Blind Lane, Shadwell


1315 Land To East Of Holywell Lane / Bridle Path Road, Shadwell

50 Not allocated for housing. Green belt site. Sieved out at Issues and Options stage. Not within the settlement hierarchy and therefore the location does not align with the spatial development strategy. Although this site has connections to the built up area it would not round off the settlement and is poorly related to the built form. As a result it would have a high potential to lead to unrestricted sprawl into the green belt.

1088 Wainscott Cottage,


Whinmoor Lane

4166 Shadwell Lane, Shadwell

159 Not allocated for housing. Green Belt site. The site would have a unacceptable impact on the Green Belt in terms of sprawl and coalescence as it would significantly reduce the gap between main urban area of Leeds and Shadwell.

4151 Ferndale House Colliers Lane, Shadwell

31 Not allocated for housing. Green belt site. Site would have been sieved out at Issues and Options stage. Not within the settlement hierarchy and therefore the location does not align with the spatial development strategy. Development would result in an isolated development to the south of Shadwell. Despite no merging of settlements, there is little to contain development resulting in a high potential to lead to unrestricted sprawl.

5022 Land South Of Main Street, Shadwell

105 Not allocated for housing. Green belt site. The site would have been sieved out at Issues and Options stage. Not within the settlement hierarchy and therefore the location does not align with the spatial development strategy. Site relates poorly to the built form of Shawell, being separated from the built up area by Main Street, and there is no defensible boundary to the south of the site. The site has an important role in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and development would have high potential to lead to unrestricted sprawl.

5162 Land at Whinmoor Lane Redhall

508 Not allocated for housing. Green Belt site. The development of the site would have an unacceptable impact on the Green Belt in terms of unrestricted sprawl and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5341 Land at Main Street Shadwell

68 Not allocated for housing. The site falls outside the settlement hierarchy and would have been sieved out at Issues and Options stage. The site would have an unacceptable impact on the Green Belt in terms of sprawl and coalescence, as it would significantly reduce the gap between Shadwell and the main urban area of Leeds.

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING 2011/12 MINUTES EXTRACTS 14th November 2011 248/11 – Neighbourhood Planning – It was noted that Shadwell did not have a Neighbourhood Plan, which meant developers would be able to erect buildings anywhere in the parish. LCC would pay for a survey or referendum but the main cost of producing a plan would be with SAPC. Members were advised that LCC’s Core Strategy would be produced by the end of the year. It was agreed that Andrew Birkbeck should be invited to attend the next meeting of full council to explain what was required for a Neighbourhood Plan. Action: Clerk to ask Andrew Birkbeck to attend the next meeting

12th December 2011 ix. Neighbourhood Planning (248/11) – It was noted that Andrew Birkbeck was to attend the full Council meeting in January 2012 to advise on neighbourhood planning.

16th January 2012

312/11 - Presentation by Andrew Birkbeck on Neighbourhood Planning Andrew Birkbeck from Leeds CC gave an update on the progress of Neighbourhood Planning and answered questions from the Councillors. He stated he would give the Parish Council further feedback when he had spoken again to the Planning Dept. 13th February 2012 367/11 – Neighbourhood Planning – ii & iii -DP explained she was taking the items to discuss out of order. She and RD had attended the Developers and Planners Forum and RD was the Parish Councils representative. The East Leeds Plan was discussed. The Core Strategy Plan was to go in front of the Executive Board in March and be in place by September. It would mean 70,000houses being built in Leeds over the next 16 years and the green belt would not stand in the way. It would mean that the site allocation plan would be ready before Shadwell’s Neighbourhood Plan. Residents would have to accept that houses will be built in Shadwell but a Neighbourhood Plan would specify the sites and type of housing, as well as giving the village some of the Community Infrastructure Levy monies. iv. RD proposed that, subject to cost, Shadwell should go ahead with a Community Neighbourhood Plan. This was seconded by GT and agreed unanimously RESOLVED: Shadwell to have a Neighbourhood Plan i. DP advised members that Rural Action Yorkshire can produce a Neighbourhood plan for a cost of around £2500. Membership would bring other benefits and costs £35 annually. RD proposed the parish Council join Rural Action Yorkshire. This was seconded by NT and passed unanimously. RESOLVED: The Parish Council to join Rural Action Yorkshire and pay immediately the membership fee. The Clerk was instructed to prepare the cheque for signing and send off the membership application 12th March 2012 402/11 – Neighbourhood Planning – the Clerk advised that she would contact Rural Action Yorkshire to see what assistance it could give with a Neighbourhood Plan. DP stated that the first task was to put together a Working Group of residents and councillors to discuss the Plan. It was agreed that the APM should be used as a platform to launch the Plan but a further public meeting will be required and then the June

pb

Typewriter

Appendix A5

newsletter and a leaflet drop. A meeting of the Working Group would then be arranged. RD suggested obtaining a parish map from John Gosling and agreed to contact him ACTION: Clerk/RD Annual Meeting 2nd April 2012 The Need for a Neighbourhood Plan – Andrew Birkbeck, Localism officer, LCC Andrew gave an informative presentation on the need for a community led Neighbourhood Plan, which was followed by many question s from members of the public. The Chairman advised that this was the springboard to a public meeting, within the very near future when a Neighbourhood plan Committee would be formed. Six residents gave their contact details to be on the Committee

The Chairman thanked all those who had attended the meeting to give presentations

16th April 2012 444/11 – Neighbourhood Planning – After a brief discussion, it was agreed that the date for the public meeting should be Monday 25th June. The newsletter would be made available to be delivered two weeks before that date and would have a big spread on the front page. The Clerk was instructed to ask Andrew Birkbeck to attend. DP stated RD may have contact details of those residents involved in the Village plan. ACTION: Clerk to provide newsletter, contact Andrew Birkbeck and those members of the public who had already shown an interest. Action: DP to contact RD for names of those involved in Village plan. 8th May 2012 27/12 – Neighbourhood Planning – i. Registration of Intent – The Clerk advised that LCC had asked town and parish councils to put their register of intent on hold at present. The Clerk had a diary note to try at the end of May. ii. Publicity for Public Meeting on 25th June – It was that notification should be on the front page of the newsletter in June. RD suggested the Clerk contact Locality to see whether it could assist. ACTION: Clerk to prepare newsletter ACTION: Clerk to contact Locality 11th June 2012 65/12 Neighbourhood Planning – It was noted that the public meeting to arrange a Steering Group for the Neighbourhood Plan, was on 25th June 2012. DP asked that all councillors attended. RD suggested reading the Walton neighbourhood Plan, which is on the internet. GT stated he was attending a Cross Parish meeting, which will share best practice and information on how to proceed

The Shadwell Neighbourhood Plan Survey (including businesses and other stakeholders)

Dear Shadwell resident, business or other stakeholder,

Do you have an opinion on the future of your village? Do you care how Shadwell will look and feel in 15 years’ time?

Are there changes that you would like/would not like to see?

The recent Localism Act has given communities, like ours, the right to unprecedented influence over the nature and

extent of the development of our neighbourhood. This comes in the form of a “neighbourhood plan”.

What is a neighbourhood plan?

A neighbourhood plan is two things: firstly it is a community vision for the future of the neighbourhood. Secondly it is a

formal planning document setting out the agreed strategy which is then submitted to Leeds City Council for approval.

Once approved, by a local referendum, neighbourhood plans form part of planning law and are the starting point when

any future development is proposed within the neighbourhood. Shadwell Parish Council has been recognised as the

qualifying body to produce a neighbourhood plan for the parish of Shadwell.

A Shadwell Neighbourhood Plan would bring numerous benefits to the village including:-

� The ability to influence how, when and where the village develops, and for what purpose

� The ability to preserve those aspects of the village which are important to us

� The ability to encourage services and development that are not currently here

� The ability to identify and seek to secure funding for community projects

But…

We don’t have one yet because first we need you to tell us what you value about Shadwell. Please help us to create on

your behalves, a plan which includes your views by taking a few moments to complete the attached questionnaire.

The Questionnaire has been designed by the Shadwell Neighbourhood Plan Group (SNPG) at minimal cost to the village.

It is going out to all households, businesses and other stakeholders in Shadwell parish and gives you the opportunity to

tell us how you feel about Shadwell, and how you’d like to see Shadwell parish in the future.

What’s next? Please complete the questionnaire and return to one of the following locations by 14th

February 2013:

The Post Office, Main Street

Open 7.30 am to 7pm

The Library, Main Street

Via letterbox at any time

c/o Debbie Potter,

15 Strickland Close,

Shadwell, LS17 8JY

c/o Ian Halmshaw,

8 Blind Lane, Shadwell, LS17 8HE

There will be a surgery session to answer any questions arising from the questionnaire on the 19th

January 2013 at the

Scout Hut from 10am to 1pm. Once we have received the completed questionnaires we will use the responses as the

basis for the first draft of the Shadwell Plan, upon which we will then consult the community again.

Who is SNPG? You may be wondering who we are. We are a diverse group of volunteer residents and other

community stakeholders who are committed to developing an effective neighbourhood plan based on the views of

Shadwell’s residents. We are empowered by Shadwell Parish Council but are a distinct body whose remit is exclusively

the development of a neighbourhood plan. SNPG is inclusive and is always pleased to welcome new members who feel

they would like to contribute to any extent.

Further Information: on the Shadwell Neighbourhood Plan Group or any other aspect of the Shadwell Plan, is available

on our website www.shadwellneighbourhoodplan.co.uk. Please also sign up for our regular newsletter via the website

and/or like us on Facebook/Twitter to keep you abreast of forthcoming events and latest developments, including the

next community open day.

Thank you for the time you have taken to read this and complete and return your questionnaire. It has not been

wasted.

pb

Typewriter

Appendix B1

1

Section A – Your Village 1

1. What do you appreciate about living in Shadwell? (Tick one box per row)

Not

important

1

2

3

4

Highly important

5

Rural atmosphere

Good school catchment

Good local shops and businesses providing a familiar service

Good transport links to other urban centres

Open/green spaces inside and surrounding the village

Strong sense of community / village identity

Working farms in and surrounding the village

Separation from other surrounding villages by fields, countryside

Overall balance of population and facilities

Varied building styles throughout the village

Variety of village activities/community groups

Easy access to countryside

Low level of crime Other (please write in)

2. Which, if any, would you like to have more of in Shadwell in the future? (Tick one box per row)

Not

important

1 2 3 4

Highly

important

5

More pre-school facilities e.g. nurseries, playgroups

More pre-teen facilities e.g. cub scouts, junior sports

More facilities for teen/young adults e.g. youth centre

More facilities for older people e.g. social activities

More local shops

More local schools

More built leisure facilities e.g. sports buildings

More parks and play areas

More health facilities e.g. GP surgery, dentists

Improved parking facilities

Improved roads

Improved pavements

The development a physical centre/heart to the village

The development of a modern multipurpose community centre/meeting place

Another pub/restaurant Comments, if any (please write in)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

2

SECTION B – Community Needs

3. How important to you, individually / as a family, are the following current village facilities?

4. (choose one box per row)

1

Not

Important

1 2 3 4

Highly

Important

5

a The post office

b The primary school

c The Scout Hut

d The children’s playground

e The library

f The pub (the Red Lion)

g The Village Hall

h The Recreation Centre (Holywell Lane)

i The allotments (Holywell Lane)

j The Methodist Church and Church Hall

k St. Pauls Church

l Public footpaths/bridleways and cycle paths

m The green belt

n The wildlife habitat

o Trees and green spaces outside the greenbelt

p The conservation area (incl proposed Holywell Triangle Conservation

Area

q The Cricket Club

r The current bus services

s Fast broadband

t Parking capacity

u Road capacity

v Emergency services (e.g. Police, Fire, and Ambulance etc.)

Comments, if any (please write in)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. The Neighbourhood Plan allows us to identify important structures features and spaces and help to protect them. How

important do you think it is that each of these are protected for future generations?

(tick one box in each row)

1 Not

Important

1 2 3 4

Highly

Important

5

a The Scout Hut

b The Village Hall

c St. Pauls Church

d Methodist Church

e The Cricket Club

3

f Red Lion Public House

g The Post Office

h Shadwell Primary School

i Shadwell Independent Library

j The tennis courts

k Shadwell Village Fish Shop

l The War Memorial

m Holywell Park (the children’s playground)

n The village green

o The allotments

p Pitts Wood (Collier’s Lane)

q Dan Quarry (Shadwell Lane)

r Recreational Hall, Holywell Lane

S The Green Belt


___________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Section C – Educational Needs

6. How well do you think the village is served with educational facilities?

(Tick one box in each row)

Don`t Poor Satisfactory Good

Very

Good

Don’t

Know

a Play groups/ parent & toddler groups

b Day nursery provision

c Child minding

d Nursery places

e Child places available at primary school

f Breakfast clubs

g After school clubs

h Holiday clubs

i Access to Secondary Education

j Access to Further Education

k Evening classes

l General opportunities


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

4

Section D – Transport needs

6. Shadwell’s public transport needs are currently served by two bus services, the 7S and the X99 (Wetherby Road):-

Extremely

Important Not

Important

at all

1 2 3 4 5

a How important are public transport links to members of your

household?

b How satisfied are you with the frequency of the existing bus

services form Shadwell?

c How satisfied are you with the range of destinations covered

by the bus services


____________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

7. In your opinion are any changes needed with regards to the following other transport issues?

(Please tick one box in each row) Significant

Reduction No

change

Significant

Increase

1 2 3 4 5

a Speed of vehicles through Shadwell

b Parking capacity in Shadwell

c Road maintenance

d Cycle paths

e Public Rights of Way

f Speed humps/other traffic calming measures

g HGV traffic

h Pavements


____________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Section E – Other community businesses, services and facilities

8. Please provide details of other development opportunities for businesses, services and facilities that

might benefit our community:-

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

5

Section F – Housing Needs

9. What do you think about the current composition of housing provision in Shadwell?

(Please tick one box in each row)

Need a Need About Too many

lot more more right already

a Flats/apartments

b Bungalows

c Low cost / affordable / starter homes

d Family housing

e Luxury housing

f Rented accommodation

g Social housing

h Eco housing

i Single storey

j Two storey houses

k Three storey houses

l Retirement homes Comments, if any (please write in)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

10.What style of accommodation would you like to see included in any new housing provision?

(Please tick one box in each row) Very

Unsuitable

Ideal

1 2 3 4 5

a Period style b Modern style c Detached d Semi-detached g e Townhouse style f Smaller gardens g Larger gardens Comments, if any (please write in)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6

11. As and when new accommodation is built, what type of building scheme, if any,

would you prefer? (Please tick one box in each row)

Very

Unsuitable

1

2 3 4 Ideal

5

a One large estate b A number of smaller developments c Individual released plots d Garden infill development e A phased development over 15years Comments, if any (please write in)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Section G – Other Issues

12. Are there any other aspects of Shadwell which you feel strongly about and which are NOT covered by

any of the above questions?

If so please comment below:-

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Section H – The Key Issues

13. What do you consider to be the three key issues to be addressed by the Shadwell Neighbourhood Plan?

Please provide details below:-

i. ________________________________________________________________

ii. ________________________________________________________________

iii. ________________________________________________________________

7

Section I – Demographics

We would very much appreciate it if you could complete the following demographic questions. This information will demonstrate

that we have gained the views of a cross section of the population, but rest assured it will not be used as part of the decision

making process for the Village Plan.

What is your postcode?

L S 1 7

To which age group do you belong?

Under 20 20 – 29 30 – 39 40 – 49 50 – 59 60 – 69 70+

Please indicate whether you are completing this questionnaire on behalf of a household, a business or in

another capacity:-

Please tick

one

Household

Business

Other –please provide details below

There will be a Surgery for any questions regarding this questionnaire at the Scout Hut (Next to the Red

Lion Pub) from 10am until 1pm on Saturday 19th

January.

Thank you for completing this Survey.

Shadwell Neighbourhood Plan Survey Entry Form - Google Forms

1 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28

Section A – Your Village

a) Rural atmosphere [1. What do you appreciate about living in Shadwell?]

Not Important - 1 0 0%

2 1 0.3%

3 9 2.9%

4 38 12.1%

Highly Important - 5 258 81.9%

b) Good school catchment [1. What do you appreciate about living in

Shadwell?]

Not Important - 1 53 16.8%

2 23 7.3%

3 61 19.4%

4 54 17.1%


c) Good local shops and businesses providing a familiar service [1. What

do you appreciate about living in Shadwell?]

pb

Typewriter

Appendix B2


2 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 16 5.1%

3 56 17.8%

4 76 24.1%

Highly Important - 5 148 47%

d) Good transport links to other urban centres [1. What do you appreciate

about living in Shadwell?]


2 21 6.7%

3 54 17.1%

4 74 23.5%


e) Open/green spaces inside and surrounding the village [1. What do you

appreciate about living in Shadwell?]


2 0 0%

3 9 2.9%

4 27 8.6%


f) Strong sense of community / village identity [1. What do you appreciate



3 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 6 1.9%

3 32 10.2%

4 70 22.2%


g) Working farms in and surrounding the village [1. What do you appreciate



2 18 5.7%

3 54 17.1%

4 79 25.1%


h) Separation from other surrounding villages by fields, countryside [1.

What do you appreciate about living in Shadwell?]


4 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 5 1.6%

3 13 4.1%

4 43 13.7%


i) Overall balance of population and facilities [1. What do you appreciate



2 8 2.5%

3 47 14.9%

4 100 31.7%


j) Varied building styles throughout the village [1. What do you appreciate



2 29 9.2%

3 85 27%

4 89 28.3%


k) Variety of village activities/community groups [1. What do you appreciate



5 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 16 5.1%

3 82 26%

4 96 30.5%


l) Easy access to countryside [1. What do you appreciate about living in

Shadwell?]


2 1 0.3%

3 13 4.1%

4 66 21%


m) Low level of crime [1. What do you appreciate about living in Shadwell?]



6 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28

2 1 0.3%

3 9 2.9%

4 38 12.1%


n) Other (please write below) [1. What do you appreciate about living in

Shadwell?]


2 0 0%

3 2 0.6%

4 0 0%


Other (Optional)

a) More pre-school facilities e.g. nurseries, playgroups [2. Which, if any,

would you like to have more of in Shadwell in the future?]


2 49 15.6%

3 73 23.2%

4 30 9.5%



7 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28

b) More pre-teen facilities e.g. cub scouts, junior sports [2. Which, if

any, would you like to have more of in Shadwell in the future?]


2 27 8.6%

3 95 30.2%

4 42 13.3%


c) More facilities for teen/young adults e.g. youth centre [2. Which, if any,



2 26 8.3%

3 91 28.9%

4 57 18.1%


d) More facilities for older people e.g. social activities [2. Which, if any,



8 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 29 9.2%

3 82 26%

4 86 27.3%


e) More local shops [2. Which, if any, would you like to have more of in

Shadwell in the future?]


2 39 12.4%

3 81 25.7%

4 72 22.9%


f) More local schools [2. Which, if any, would you like to have more of in



9 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 56 17.8%

3 54 17.1%

4 12 3.8%


g) More built leisure facilities e.g. sports buildings [2. Which, if any,



2 59 18.7%

3 67 21.3%

4 41 13%


h) More parks and play areas [2. Which, if any, would you like to have

more of in Shadwell in the future?]


2 45 14.3%

3 90 28.6%

4 58 18.4%


i) More health facilities e.g. GP surgery, dentists [2. Which, if any, would you

like to have more of in Shadwell in the future?]


10 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 35 11.1%

3 63 20%

4 65 20.6%


j) Improved parking facilities [2. Which, if any, would you like to have more

of in Shadwell in the future?]


2 41 13%

3 75 23.8%

4 46 14.6%


l) Improved roads [2. Which, if any, would you like to have more of in



11 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 13 4.1%

3 55 17.5%

4 71 22.5%


m) Improved pavements [2. Which, if any, would you like to have more of in



2 23 7.3%

3 49 15.6%

4 77 24.4%


n) The development a physical centre/heart to the village [2. Which, if any,



2 28 8.9%

3 90 28.6%

4 70 22.2%



12 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28

o) The development of a modern multipurpose community centre/meeting

place [2. Which, if any, would you like to have more of in Shadwell in the

future?]


2 41 13%

3 84 26.7%

4 49 15.6%


p) Another pub/restaurant [2. Which, if any, would you like to have more of

in Shadwell in the future?]


2 44 14%

3 63 20%

4 26 8.3%



SECTION B – Community Needs

a) The post office [3. How important to you, individually / as a family, are

the following current village facilities?]


13 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 0 0%

3 10 3.2%

4 32 10.2%


b) The primary school [3. How important to you, individually / as a

family, are the following current village facilities?]


2 19 6%

3 36 11.4%

4 22 7%


c) The Scout Hut [3. How important to you, individually / as a family, are




14 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28

2 37 11.7%

3 43 13.7%

4 44 14%


d) The children’s playground [3. How important to you, individually / as

a family, are the following current village facilities?]


2 22 7%

3 45 14.3%

4 53 16.8%


e) The library [3. How important to you, individually / as a family, are the

following current village facilities?]


2 28 8.9%

3 81 25.7%

4 72 22.9%


f) The pub (the Red Lion) [3. How important to you, individually / as a



15 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 26 8.3%

3 58 18.4%

4 72 22.9%


g) The Village Hall [3. How important to you, individually / as a family,

are the following current village facilities?]


2 20 6.3%

3 59 18.7%

4 86 27.3%


h) The Recreation Centre (Holywell Lane) [3. How important to you,

individually / as a family, are the following current village facilities?]


16 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 37 11.7%

3 78 24.8%

4 53 16.8%


i) The allotments (Holywell Lane) [3. How important to you, individually

/ as a family, are the following current village facilities?]


2 54 17.1%

3 60 19%

4 40 12.7%


j) The Methodist Church and Church Hall [3. How important to you,

individually / as a family, are the following current village facilities?]


2 42 13.3%

3 62 19.7%

4 42 13.3%


k) St. Pauls Church [3. How important to you, individually / as a family,



17 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 21 6.7%

3 66 21%

4 61 19.4%


l) Public footpaths/bridleways and cycle paths [3. How important to

you, individually / as a family, are the following current village facilities?]


2 4 1.3%

3 32 10.2%

4 70 22.2%


m) The green belt [3. How important to you, individually / as a family, are



18 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 2 0.6%

3 7 2.2%

4 26 8.3%


n) The wildlife habitat [3. How important to you, individually / as a



2 5 1.6%

3 23 7.3%

4 47 14.9%


o) Trees and green spaces outside the greenbelt [3. How important to

you, individually / as a family, are the following current village facilities?]


2 3 1%

3 12 3.8%

4 50 15.9%


p) The conservation area (incl proposed Holywell Triangle Conservation

Area [3. How important to you, individually / as a family, are the following

current village facilities?]


19 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 8 2.5%

3 41 13%

4 54 17.1%


q) The Cricket Club [3. How important to you, individually / as a family,



2 34 10.8%

3 71 22.5%

4 58 18.4%


r) The current bus services [3. How important to you, individually / as a



20 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 14 4.4%

3 36 11.4%

4 55 17.5%


s) Fast broadband [3. How important to you, individually / as a family,



2 10 3.2%

3 30 9.5%

4 60 19%


t) Parking capacity [3. How important to you, individually / as a family,



2 35 11.1%

3 80 25.4%

4 59 18.7%


u) Road capacity [3. How important to you, individually / as a family, are



21 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 21 6.7%

3 73 23.2%

4 71 22.5%


v) Emergency services (e.g. Police, Fire, and Ambulance etc.) [3. How

important to you, individually / as a family, are the following current village

facilities?]


2 2 0.6%

3 26 8.3%

4 61 19.4%



a) The Scout Hut [4. The Neighbourhood Plan allows us to identify

important structures features and spaces and help to protect them. How

important do you think it is that each of these are protected for future

generations?]


22 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 11 3.5%

3 49 15.6%

4 58 18.4%


b) The Village Hall [4. The Neighbourhood Plan allows us to identify



generations?]


2 4 1.3%

3 24 7.6%

4 55 17.5%


c) St. Pauls Church [4. The Neighbourhood Plan allows us to identify



generations?]


23 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 10 3.2%

3 34 10.8%

4 49 15.6%


d) Methodist Church [4. The Neighbourhood Plan allows us to identify



generations?]


2 15 4.8%

3 38 12.1%

4 52 16.5%


e) The Cricket Club [4. The Neighbourhood Plan allows us to identify



generations?]


24 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 22 7%

3 54 17.1%

4 60 19%


f) Red Lion Public House [4. The Neighbourhood Plan allows us to

identify important structures features and spaces and help to protect them.

How important do you think it is that each of these are protected for future

generations?]


2 5 1.6%

3 33 10.5%

4 68 21.6%


g) The Post Office [4. The Neighbourhood Plan allows us to identify



generations?]


25 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 0 0%

3 3 1%

4 18 5.7%


h) Shadwell Primary School [4. The Neighbourhood Plan allows us to



generations?]


2 8 2.5%

3 21 6.7%

4 38 12.1%


i) Shadwell Independent Library [4. The Neighbourhood Plan allows us

to identify important structures features and spaces and help to protect

them. How important do you think it is that each of these are protected for

future


26 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 12 3.8%

3 71 22.5%

4 65 20.6%


j) The tennis courts [4. The Neighbourhood Plan allows us to identify



generations?]


2 23 7.3%

3 80 25.4%

4 67 21.3%


k) Shadwell Village Fish Shop [4. The Neighbourhood Plan allows us to




27 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 14 4.4%

3 57 18.1%

4 71 22.5%


l) The War Memorial [4. The Neighbourhood Plan allows us to identify



generations?]


2 8 2.5%

3 46 14.6%

4 55 17.5%


m) Holywell Park (the children’s playground) [4. The Neighbourhood

Plan allows us to identify important structures features and spaces and help

to protect them. How important do you think it is that each of these are

protected for future generations?]


28 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 5 1.6%

3 33 10.5%

4 61 19.4%


n) The village green [4. The Neighbourhood Plan allows us to identify



generations?]


2 14 4.4%

3 59 18.7%

4 67 21.3%


o) The allotments [4. The Neighbourhood Plan allows us to identify



generations?]


29 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 27 8.6%

3 88 27.9%

4 64 20.3%


p) Pitts Wood (Collier’s Lane) [4. The Neighbourhood Plan allows us to



generations?]


2 29 9.2%

3 51 16.2%

4 80 25.4%


q) Dan Quarry (Shadwell Lane) [4. The Neighbourhood Plan allows us to



generations?]


30 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 31 9.8%

3 72 22.9%

4 71 22.5%


r) Recreational Hall, Holywell Lane [4. The Neighbourhood Plan allows

us to identify important structures features and spaces and help to protect

them. How important do you think it is that each of these are protected for

future generations?]


2 28 8.9%

3 72 22.9%

4 65 20.6%


s) The Green Belt [4. The Neighbourhood Plan allows us to identify



generations?]


31 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 1 0.3%

3 6 1.9%

4 21 6.7%



Section C – Educational Needs

a) Play groups/ parent & toddler groups [5. How well do you think the

village is served with educational facilities?]

Poor 5 1.6%

Satisfactory 28 8.9%

Good 69 21.9%

Very Good 58 18.4%

Don't Know 127 40.3%

b) Day nursery provision [5. How well do you think the village is served

with educational facilities?]


32 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28

Poor 5 1.6%


Good 47 14.9%

Very Good 51 16.2%


c) Child minding [5. How well do you think the village is served with

educational facilities?]

Poor 8 2.5%


Good 30 9.5%

Very Good 22 7%


d) Nursery places [5. How well do you think the village is served with



33 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28

Poor 6 1.9%


Good 31 9.8%

Very Good 37 11.7%


e) Child places available at primary school [5. How well do you think the

village is served with educational facilities?]

Poor 4 1.3%


Good 37 11.7%

Very Good 41 13%


f) Breakfast clubs [5. How well do you think the village is served with


Poor 6 1.9%


Good 21 6.7%

Very Good 26 8.3%


g) After school clubs [5. How well do you think the village is served with



34 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28

Poor 3 1%


Good 24 7.6%

Very Good 24 7.6%


h) Holiday clubs [5. How well do you think the village is served with


Poor 12 3.8%


Good 23 7.3%

Very Good 25 7.9%


i) Access to Secondary Education [5. How well do you think the village

is served with educational facilities?]


35 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28

Poor 28 8.9%


Good 47 14.9%

Very Good 41 13%


j) Access to Further Education [5. How well do you think the village is

served with educational facilities?]

Poor 40 12.7%


Good 39 12.4%

Very Good 23 7.3%


k) Evening classes [5. How well do you think the village is served with


Poor 70 22.2%


Good 23 7.3%

Very Good 10 3.2%


l) General opportunities [5. How well do you think the village is served

with educational facilities?]


36 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28

Poor 23 7.3%


Good 47 14.9%

Very Good 18 5.7%



Section D – Transport needs

a) How important are public transport links to members of your household?

[6. Shadwell’s public transport needs are currently served by two bus

services, the 7S and the X99 (Wetherby Road):-]

Extremely Important - 1 153 48.6%

2 41 13%

3 46 14.6%

4 40 12.7%

Not Important at all - 5 31 9.8%

b) How satisfied are you with the frequency of the existing bus services

from Shadwell? [6. Shadwell’s public transport needs are currently served

by two bus services, the 7S and the X99 (Wetherby Road):-]


37 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 69 21.9%

3 100 31.7%

4 38 12.1%


c) How satisfied are you with the range of destinations covered by the

bus services [6. Shadwell’s public transport needs are currently served by

two bus services, the 7S and the X99 (Wetherby Road):-]


2 45 14.3%

3 115 36.5%

4 53 16.8%



a) Speed of vehicles through Shadwell [7. In your opinion are any

changes needed with regards to the following other transport issues?]


38 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28

Significant Reduction - 1 93 29.5%

2 50 15.9%

3 144 45.7%

4 5 1.6%

Significant Increase - 5 17 5.4%

b) Parking capacity in Shadwell [7. In your opinion are any changes

needed with regards to the following other transport issues?]


2 10 3.2%

3 179 56.8%

4 58 18.4%


c) Road maintenance [7. In your opinion are any changes needed with

regards to the following other transport issues?]


39 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 7 2.2%

3 51 16.2%

4 94 29.8%


d) Cycle paths [7. In your opinion are any changes needed with regards

to the following other transport issues?]


2 6 1.9%

3 169 53.7%

4 58 18.4%


e) Public Rights of Way [7. In your opinion are any changes needed with

regards to the following other transport issues?]


2 4 1.3%

3 189 60%

4 58 18.4%

Significant Increase - 5 44 14%

f) Speed humps/other traffic calming measures [7. In your opinion are

any changes needed with regards to the following other transport issues?]


40 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 33 10.5%

3 128 40.6%

4 20 6.3%


g) HGV traffic [7. In your opinion are any changes needed with regards



2 66 21%

3 107 34%

4 7 2.2%


h) Pavements [7. In your opinion are any changes needed with regards



41 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 5 1.6%

3 115 36.5%

4 91 28.9%



Section E – Other community businesses, services and

facilities

8. Please provide details of other development opportunities for

businesses, services and facilities that might benefit our community:-

Section F– Housing Needs

a) Flats/apartments [9. What do you think about the current composition

of housing provision in Shadwell?]

Needs more 40 12.7%

About right 210 66.7%

Too many already 28 8.9%

b) Bungalows [9. What do you think about the current composition of

housing provision in Shadwell?]

Needs more 72 22.9%



c) Low cost / affordable / starter homes [9. What do you think about the

current composition of housing provision in Shadwell?]


42 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28

Needs more 99 31.4%



d) Family housing [9. What do you think about the current composition


Needs more 33 10.5%



e) Luxury housing [9. What do you think about the current composition


Needs more 20 6.3%

About right 192 61%


f) Rented accommodation [9. What do you think about the current

composition of housing provision in Shadwell?]


43 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28

Needs more 24 7.6%



g) Social housing [9. What do you think about the current composition


Needs more 24 7.6%



h) Eco housing [9. What do you think about the current composition of


Needs more 89 28.3%

About right 148 47%


i) Single storey [9. What do you think about the current composition of



44 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28

Needs more 35 11.1%

About right 208 66%


j) Two storey houses [9. What do you think about the current


Needs more 19 6%



k) Three storey houses [9. What do you think about the current


Needs more 9 2.9%

About right 192 61%


l) Retirement homes [9. What do you think about the current



45 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28

Needs more 148 47%




a) Period style [10. What style of accommodation would you like to see

included in any new housing provision?]

Very Unsuitable - 1 25 7.9%

2 18 5.7%

3 73 23.2%

4 48 15.2%

Ideal - 5 101 32.1%

b) Modern style [10. What style of accommodation would you like to see



46 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 44 14%

3 87 27.6%

4 41 13%

Ideal - 5 22 7%

c) Detached [10. What style of accommodation would you like to see


Very Unsuitable – 1 16 5.1%

2 11 3.5%

3 82 26%

4 56 17.8%

Ideal - 5 101 32.1%

d) Semi-detached [10. What style of accommodation would you like to

see included in any new housing provision?]


2 23 7.3%

3 109 34.6%

4 65 20.6%

Ideal - 5 49 15.6%

e) Townhouse style [10. What style of accommodation would you like to



47 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 49 15.6%

3 75 23.8%

4 40 12.7%

Ideal - 5 26 8.3%

f) Smaller gardens [10. What style of accommodation would you like to



2 35 11.1%

3 102 32.4%

4 32 10.2%

Ideal - 5 31 9.8%

g) Larger gardens [10. What style of accommodation would you like to



48 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 32 10.2%

3 83 26.3%

4 39 12.4%

Ideal - 5 74 23.5%


a) One large estate [11. As and when new accommodation is built, what

type of building scheme, if any, would you prefer?]


2 8 2.5%

3 8 2.5%

4 9 2.9%

Ideal - 5 4 1.3%

b) A number of smaller developments [11. As and when new

accommodation is built, what type of building scheme, if any, would you

prefer?]

Very Unsuitable - 1 41 13%

2 32 10.2%

3 65 20.6%

4 63 20%

Ideal - 5 89 28.3%


49 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28

c) Individual released plots [11. As and when new accommodation is

built, what type of building scheme, if any, would you prefer?]


2 14 4.4%

3 63 20%

4 63 20%

Ideal - 5 125 39.7%

d) Garden infill development [11. As and when new accommodation is

built, what type of building scheme, if any, would you prefer?]


2 44 14%

3 43 13.7%

4 35 11.1%

Ideal - 5 34 10.8%

e) A phased development over 15years [11. As and when new

accommodation is built, what type of building scheme, if any, would you

prefer?]


50 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28


2 19 6%

3 51 16.2%

4 35 11.1%

Ideal - 5 123 39%


Section G – Other Issues

12. Are there any other aspects of Shadwell which you feel strongly about,

and which are NOT covered by any of the above questions?

Section H – The Key Issues

13. What do you consider to be the three key issues to be addressed by the

Shadwell Neighbourhood Plan?

Section I– Demographics

What is your postcode?

To which age group do you belong?

Under 20 3 1%

20 – 29 5 1.6%

30 – 39 27 8.6%

40 – 49 42 13.3%

50 – 59 59 18.7%

60 – 69 91 28.9%

70+ 88 27.9%

Please indicate whether you are completing this questionnaire on behalf of

a household, a business or in another capacity: -


51 of 51 29/04/2015 10:28

Household 312 99%

Business 3 1%

Other –please provide details below 0 0%

Other

SHADWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN STEERING GROUP

INVITES YOU TO A

Drop in Event at

Shadwell Village Scout Hut

Saturday, 29 November 2014

From 10am until 1 pm.

This is YOUR chance to have YOUR say in future Development and planning issues in the parish.

Find out where we are up to in the preparation of YOUR VILLAGE PLAN

Please do come and talk to the Steering group,

Enjoy a Tea or a Coffee and register your Opinions/views

Without your input and participation at this

Drop-In event we will not be able to complete a Neighbourhood Plan

Please put this date in your diary

and make the effort to “Drop-In”!!

Don’t lose your chance to influence the Look of Your Village

pb

Typewriter

Appendix C1

SHADWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANISSUES & OPTIONS Questionnaire

The Vision and Objectives

Do you agree with the Vision? Yes No

Do you agree with the Objectives? Yes No

Comments

Urban Design and Heritage

Do you agree with the Guidance for Development in Shadwell? Yes No

Comments

Natural Environment

Should the Plan promote a programme of tree management? Yes No

Are there any areas that should be considered for additional protection? Yes No

Comments

Community Activities and Facilities

Should the Plan aim to deliver a small medical centre or surgery? Yes No

Should the Plan aim to deliver further allotments and public seating? Yes No

Should the Plan aim to retain existing community uses (e.g. Red Lion, Post Office/General Store?

Yes No

Comments

Transport

Should the Plan support traffic calming while seeking improved methods? Yes No

Should the Plan aim to improve the quality of footways and footpaths? Yes No

Should the Plan aim to improve cycling routes? Yes No

Should the Plan aim to improve bus services? Yes No

Comments

Services infrastructure

Should the Plan aim to improve broadband and mobile data services? Yes No

Should the Plan encourage the provision of appropriately located individual low-carbon or renewable energy sources?

Yes No

Comments

Housing

Should the Plan allow infill development in appropriate locations? Yes No

Should the Plan provide for small-scale retirement housing? Yes No

If you have any further comments please add them overleaf

pb

Typewriter

Appendix C2

Further Comments

Sheet1

Page 1

SHADWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN Questionnaire Analysis

ISSUES & OPTIONS

The Vision and Objectives

Do you agree with the Vision?

Yes: 74

No: 0

Do you agree with the Objectives?

Yes: 72

No: 0


Do you agree with the Guidance for Development in Shadwell?

Yes: 68

No: 3

Natural Environment

Yes: 72

No: 2

Are there any areas that should be considered for additional protection?

Yes: 27

No: 15


Yes: 50

No: 18

Should the Plan aim to deliver further allotments and public seating?

Yes: 59

No: 11

Yes: 75

No: 1

Transport

Should the Plan support traffic calming while seeking improved methods?

Yes: 44

No: 16

Should the Plan aim to improve the quality of footways and footpaths?

Yes: 70

No: 3

Should the Plan aim to improve cycling routes?

Yes: 53

No: 17

Should the Plan aim to improve bus services?

Yes: 58

No: 13

Services Infrastructure

Should the Plan aim to improve broadband and mobile data services?

Yes: 75

No: 2

Should the Plan encourage the provision of appropriately located individual low-carbon or renewable energy sources?

Yes: 49

No: 12

Housing

Should the Plan allow infill development in appropriate locations?

Yes: 58

No: 11

Should the Plan provide for small-scale retirement housing?

Yes: 61

No: 10

Should the Plan promote a programme of tree management?

Should the Plan aim to deliver a small medical centre or surgery?

Should the Plan aim to retain existing community uses (e.g. Red Lion, Post Office/General Store?

SHADWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

ISSUES & OPTIONS

Questionnaire Responses.

Methodology of this analysis:

There were surprisingly few comments strongly for or against questions. Simple support or objection comments with no further explanation have not been listed.

The list below contains comments which make additional points or reasoned objections. Numbers making essentially the same point shown in brackets

COMMENT RESPONSE


New roofs to accommodate solar but within tiles not on top (1) Include in Guidance

Plant British species trees – not ornamental (1) Include in Guidance but not always appropriate

Some older buildings already 3-storey (1) 3 storey not excluded but exception rather rule.

Where is there a place for a pretty bridge? (1)(8yr-old, endorsed by 2 others) No justification, sadly

Natural Environment

Fit bird boxes in Bluebell Woods and bird feeders around Shadwell (1) Include as aspiration/action proposal

Most houses have gardens, so more allotments not needed (1) There is not necessarily a corollary between garden possession and desire for

allotment.. Evidence of waiting list needed to justify need, though.

Suitable field with plenty of bins needed as a “dog park” (dogs not allowed on

Shadwell Park) (1)

Policy to allow change of use of current agricultural land to park?

Or allocate specific site where approval would be given? Should be deliverable.


Improve Shadwell Park with basketball nets, football nets, skate park (1) Include as aspiration/action proposal

Shadwell Medical Centre is near enough on a bus route (1) Majority in support of suggestion for local surgery. But is it likely to be

delivered?

Redevelop recreational centre site to a full service community centre, including Possible long term aim

medical centre, cafe, library and hireable space (2)

Transport

Speed restrictions required on Gateland Lane (2) All highway works have to be aspirations in the plan, rather than policies.

20mph limit in centre of village (5) ditto

Remove speed bumps (9) ditto

Add traffic warning signs (3) ditto

Add mirror opposite Church Farm Garth on Main Street (1) Ditto – not in normal highway vocabulary, so unlikely

Restrict larger vehicles to access only ditto

Parking near school and church is a problem Improve parking availability or double yellow lines (but moves the problem

elsewhere)

Some local children (six of them) unable to to get school places and need to

drive out of village to schools while out of village children driven in (2)

Admission policy not a planning matter, but this is also a reason for increased

traffic

A lollypop lady would be a good idea (1) (9yr-old) Not a planning matter

Services Infrastructure

Low water pressure Contact YW

Housing

Need to make affordable housing for young in Plan (1) Views?

Preference for owner-occupation reduces accessibility in housing particularly for

younger people (2)

Revisit

1

Shadwell Community Walkabout

10:00 2nd Dec 2017

Attended by:

Debbie Potter, Ian Halmshaw Helen Jordan Jeremy Thompson Denise Trickett Alice Pratt Peter Baker RIBA MRTPI IHBC (Walk leader)

Peter Baker outlined the purpose of the walkabout, which was to look in detail at some of the

aspects, features and facilities of the village which will be relevant to the policy intentions currently

under consideration:

• Visual character of the village: Scale, spaces, landscape, materials

o If there is an intention to include policies concerning the character of the village, we

need to analyse what that character is

o Shadwell Conservation Area and the draft Holywell Triangle Conservation Area have

character appraisals, already which will provide the basis for any policy wording

applicable to them

o The visual character includes: scale, spaces, views and vistas, landscape quality,

materials.

• Potential Local Green Spaces

o Several spaces have been put forward through the questionnaire, the issues and options

exhibition and steering group workshop discussions as being of particular significance to

the community, and these will be looked at. We will also see what other spaces might

pb

Typewriter

Appendix D1

2

be considered. These will be analysed against the criteria set by the NPPF prior to their

consideration by the wider community.

• Locations for benches

o The desire expressed for more seating around the village can be included in a policy

and/or a project, but it will be helpful to know where these could be placed.

• Heritage assets

o The conservation area appraisals both include “positive” buildings, which, whilst they

are within a designated heritage asset (the conservation area), are not themselves

designated. Outside the conservation areas there are also some buildings which

probably qualify as non-designated heritage assets – i.e. of historic value locally to the

village.

o The list of non-designated heritage assets will be assessed against the criteria set out in

Historic England guidance and in consultation with the LCC Conservation team.

• Trees

o Trees within conservation areas have limited protection and some trees are covered by

TPOs. We will look at any that have no protection but ought to, and relate this to the

policy intentions to retain tree cover in the village.

As a result of the walk, the following was established:

1. Visual Character.

a. The two main areas of the built-up village outside the conservation areas are the

Cricketers, Gateland Drive area and the Ash Hills.

b. The Cricketers built at the turn of the 21st century is a group of detached two storey

houses built in a red multi brick with some tile hanging and some stone features and

a mix of grey and brown concrete roof tiles. Most of the roads are block paved with

front gardens defined by low hedges and planting. The roads follow a gently

curvilinear plan on a sloping site, providing unfolding views along them and glimpses

of the countryside to the north. There are few substantial mature trees on the site,

though one, an over-mature silver birch to the rear of 107/109 Main Street, does

stand out. [post-walk check shows that while a few other, smaller trees on the

estate have TPOs (added prior to it being developed judging by the reference –

1998/1 and 1999/78), this one is unprotected, perhaps because of its condition and

overmaturity].

c. The section of Main Street between the two conservation areas (from Colliers Lane

to Gateland Lane) is a straight length of road sloping down in both directions from a

high point by the listed stone Library (the former 1814 Methodist chapel) sits

opposite the present stone Methodist Church (1892). Houses on either side are in a

mix of ages, styles and materials, but all are two storey and present a fairly

consistent building line with front gardens defined by walls and hedges. There are a

few front garden trees and the vista to the west is terminated by a significant group

of trees lining the road as it bends round to the north-west.

d. Gateland Drive, built in the 1960s, has a gentle double curve which helps to limit a

direct line of sight along it. It is lined by detached two story stone houses behind

front hedges and has grass verges both sides each with a continuous line of small

street trees. Blind Lane is straighter, but with similar houses of the same period, and

has views southward across open countryside.

e. Ash Hills is a large estate, also built in the 1960s and also consisting of two storey

stone detached houses (some with rooms in the roof and dormers at first floor). The

3

network of streets varies from straighter alignments to the east, with low front walls

or hedges, and more curvilinear to the east with generous open fronts with lawns,

shrubs and garden trees. At many junctions, private side gardens are lined by

trimmed tall evergreen hedges, providing a contrast to that general openness. There

are a number of older trees pre-dating the development, set within it.

f. Crofton Rise to the east of the conservation area includes light beige brick semi-

detached houses on the north side and bungalows on the south side aligning it, with

a grass verge on one side and low stone walls lining the gardens. Main Street parallel

with Crofton Rise is lined only on the north side with detached bungalows with their

white painted gable ends facing the road.

2. Potential Local Green Spaces.

a. The following green spaces have been identified as potential Local Green Spaces and

will be the subject of further assessment:

i. Holywell Park

ii. Village Green

iii. St Paul’s Churchyard

iv. Community garden, Colliers Lane

v. Field with ridge and furrow

vi. Bus turnaround

vii. Library Garden

viii. Planted area Main St/Ash Hill Lane junction

ix. Planted area Main St/Cricketers View junction

x. Paved and planted area Main St/footpath links junction

b. These will be assessed against the criteria set out in the NPPF:

• where the green space is in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves;

• where the green area is demonstrably special to a local community and holds a

particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance,

recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife;

and

• where the green area concerned is local in character and is not an extensive tract of

land.

3. Locations for Benches:

a. Potential locations for benches noted were:

i. SE corner of the junction of Main St/Colliers Lane, facing the view of the

shops. There is a wide pavement here which is used for residents parking

(no.72 has no off-street parking), so that might need to be accommodated)

ii. Within the community garden on Colliers Lane. There are two benches here

currently with space for one or two more, overlooking the view west

iii. Within the bus turnaround green area. There is no footway here but the

carriageway is only used by buses (every 20 minutes), so crossing would not

be hazardous. There is currently a bench for bus passengers at the bus stop

but this faces the road and not the view.

iv. Winn Moor Lane, near the stone stile (by Barnaby Cottages), good view

looking north.

v. Shadwell Lane, anywhere mid-way to Slaid Hill.

vi. Hobberley Lane, anywhere mid-way up the hill. (Problem—narrow verges,

mostly.)

4. Heritage Assets

4

a. The NPPF defines designated and non-designated heritage assets. Designated

Heritage Assets (DHAs) include Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas. Non-

designated Heritage Assets (NDHAs) are other assets identified by the Local Planning

Authority (can be through Neighbourhood Plans).

b. “Positive” buildings within the Conservation Areas have been defined by their

character appraisals. These are within DHAs but are not designated themselves.

c. Outside of the Conservation Areas, PB had prepared a list of NDHAs for the initial NP

draft from a visual inspection, but they need to be systematically assessed against

criteria set out in Historic England’s guidance for local listing. The milestone on

Shadwell Lane 330m east of Slaid Hill will be included on that list. 112 Main St is of

an age which could be considered, though possibly too altered.

5. Trees

a. Some trees in Shadwell have some protection

i. Trees within Conservation Areas have limited protection. This is a

requirement to give 6 weeks’ notice to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) of

intention to fell or carry out tree works – the LPA can give consent or ignore,

in which case work can proceed, or can issue a Tree Preservation Order

(TPO).

ii. Trees with TPOs require consent from the LPA for any works.

iii. In both cases there are exceptions with respect to emergency works.

b. Certain trees outside the Conservation Area and without TPOs were noted:

i. Group of trees on the south west side of the junction of Main Street and

Colliers Lane. These terminate the view westward down Main Street.

ii. Oak tree opposite Ash Hill Lane on the south side of Main Street. This is a

veteran tree and not well-shaped but possibly of historic interest.

iii. Silver Birch to the rear of 107 Main Street (over-mature tree)

iv. Line of trees south of Main Street east of the bus turnaround

v. Trees aligning the Coal Road

vi. Trees south of Oak Cottage (off Gateland Lane)

vii. Trees around Ferndale, Colliers Lane

viii. Trees around Hobberley Lodge, Hobberley Lane

ix. Trees around Hobberley House, Hobberley Lane

x. Woodland south of Bay Horse Lane along the Parish Boundary

xi. Red Hall Wood

c. Some trees marked on the TPO map are no longer there:

i. 2 trees ref 1991/1 rear of 60 and 62 Ash Hill Gardens (by the footpath)

ii. Tree ref 2002/46 front garden of 223 Main Street (opposite the bus

turnaround)

SHADWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN POLICY INTENTIONS AND DRAFT POLICIES Questionnaire

Policy GEN 1 – General Policy

Do you agree with the Policy? Yes No

Comments

Policy HLC 1 – Development in Conservation Areas


Comments

Policy HLC 2 – Non-designated Heritage Assets


Are there any buildings/structures which ought to be included/omitted? Yes No

Comments

Policy HLC 2 – Positive Design

Do you agree with the Policy?? Yes No

Comments

Policy ENV 1 – Rural Environment


Comments

Policy ENV 2 – Trees


Comments

Policy ENV 3 – Local Green Spaces


Are there any green spaces which ought to be included/omitted? Yes No

Comments

PTO

pb

Typewriter

Appendix D2

Policy COM 1 –Community Facilities


Are there any community facilities which ought to be included/omitted? Yes No

Comments

Policy INF 1 –Infrastructure Provision and Design


Comments

Policy HOU 1 –Housing Mix


Comments

If you have any further comments please add them below

Further Comments

Notes re 7th April 2018 consultation event , Shadwell Library

Views on proposed Policy Intentions (comments by steering group in red)

• 14 comment sheets left on the day

• 3 comments sheets left at the PO later

• Geographical spread – v good across the village. But were there any from Shadwell Parks? (none on

list).

• 25 attendees listed

• General support, no complaints about the policies – quote: “overall you have prepared an excellent

document”

• There were several points made encouraging us to include things we have already included, so they

hadn’t read the documents.

• Suggested:

o Parking problems at the school (as discussed at the annual parish meeting recently) this can

be included as a project

o Consider double yellow lines near school, church and village hall. Would be part of project

related to traffic safety in the village.

o Add to local green spaces:

▪ School playing fields but might be needed for school expansion

▪ The lost garden to the east of the pub. Agreed

▪ Brandon Golf Course. Not within the Parish boundary

o Add to community facilities

▪ Allotments. Already included.

▪ Tennis courts. Already included.

o Add to non-designated heritage assets

▪ The boundary stone. Already included.

▪ The Ordnance Survey stone, entrance to Dan Quarry. Agreed

o Need a bakery at the shops. Not appropriate for a Neighbourhood Plan

Shadwell Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group. April 2018

SHADWELL

Draft Neighbourhood Plan

Welcome to the 6-week, formal, public Pre-Submission

Consultation period for the proposed Shadwell Neighbourhood Plan, which has been researched, developed and drafted by a small group of local volunteers over several years, on behalf of the Parish Council, with advice from our consultant Planning Professional, Peter Baker, RIBA MRTPI IHBC. We strongly believe that it is important to have local and village wide input to the future changes in our village, rather than leave it entirely up to the City Council to decide for us. We hope you will consider the draft plan, and submit your comments, which will be given proper consideration.

Background to the Plan Shadwell Neighbourhood Plan is your Plan and will help to shape development in the village over the next fifteen years. When adopted it will form part of the statutory local development plan for the city. It will include policies for any developments which take place within the Parish so that they meet the vision we agreed for the future of the village, based on views expressed in the village wide survey of 2013, and subsequent consultations and open days (see below).

Final policies have now been prepared by the Parish Council Steering Group taking your previous comments into account and are shown overleaf. They are intended to ensure that:

• new development is well-designed and respects the essential character of the village, whether in a conservation area or not;

• that the green belt countryside surrounding the village is not compromised by inappropriate development;

• that important green spaces are protected from future development;

• that the value of trees and gardens in the village is recognised and maintained;

• that Shadwell’s valued community facilities are not lost; and

• that new homes suitable for smaller households and older people are encouraged.

The Plan also includes a list of projects which are aimed at furthering the vision, as well as detailed design guidance and character appraisal. Pre-Submission Consultation The full Neighbourhood Plan is almost ready to be submitted for independent examination – but not before you have had your say. This consultation on the Plan runs from

22nd Sept and closes on 3rd Nov 2018 and you can comment at any time before it closes. The full Plan can be seen on the website at: www.shadwellneighbourhoodplan.co.uk and there are copies available to read at the Library during its opening hours. You can comment in a number of ways:

• Fill in the feedback form that has come with this leaflet and return it to the Post Office

• Go to www.shadwellneighbourhoodplan.co.uk and fill in the feedback page there and submit it on-line

• Feedback forms will be available with the hard copies at the Library and should be left at the Library

• Attend the drop-in event where members of the steering group will be on hand to answer any questions, at:

Shadwell Independent Library on 20th October 2018

from 10.00am to 1.00pm Free coffee, tea and biscuits will be provided.

Our vision for Shadwell in 2033 is that:

• Shadwell’s village atmosphere – the distinct identity provided by its rural setting, its heritage and visual character – will have been retained and strengthened;

• Change through development will have been small-scale, without encroaching on the surrounding countryside;

• existing valued cultural and community facilities and structures will have been retained and/or sensitively improved to provide a stimulating social and educational environment for all;

• residents’ ability to move about safely will have been improved, and good links between Shadwell and its surroundings maintained; and

• residents of all ages and abilities will have been accommodated within the village where practicable

http://www.shadwellneighbourhoodplan.co.uk/

http://www.shadwellneighbourhoodplan.co.uk/

pb

Typewriter

Appendix E1

Proposed Policies

Policy GEN1 – Enhancing the village

Development should:

• retain and enhance the village atmosphere;

• improve the provision of community facilities;

• promote easier access for all;

• improve services provision; and/or

• provide for the housing needs of the village.

Policy HLC1 – Development in Conservation Areas

Development within the Shadwell Conservation Area and the Shadwell

Holywell Triangle Conservation Area should respect their historic and

architectural characters. Proposals for new development and extensions

within the Conservation Areas should be accompanied by a statement

demonstrating:

• an understanding of the historic significance of the site and its

setting, and;

• how the particular character of the Conservation Area will benefit

from the development.

Policy HLC2 – Development involving non-designated heritage assets

Proposals for development involving any non-designated heritage asset

(including those identified on Maps 3 and 4 and in the appendix) outside

the conservation areas should demonstrate:

• an understanding of the historic significance of the asset; and

• how the development will respect its heritage attributes in ways

which will be particularly beneficial to the future of Shadwell.

Policy HCL3 – Positive Design

Any new building, alteration or extension should aim to achieve excellence

in design, recognising and enhancing local distinctiveness and character,

including:

• the scale of buildings in the locality, their materials and detailed

design features;

• the townscape setting such as corner sites, focal points, viewpoints

and vistas, particularly those identified on Map 3;

• any existing trees and planting, and;

• boundary walls, etc.

Policy ENV1 – Rural Environment

Development should be located within the village envelope as defined on

Map 2 unless it is appropriate to the purposes of the Green Belt or is on

land allocated for development by the Leeds Local Development

Framework.

Any development permissible in the Green Belt should respect Shadwell’s

existing rural pattern of development, with small-scale groups of

traditional stone buildings in a rural landscape setting, taking into account

particularly, but not exclusively, the distant views shown on Map 3.

Policy ENV2: Trees and Gardens

Development within residential gardens will only be permitted where it

will not:

• significantly increase the density and grain of existing development in

the surrounding area; or

• reduce the landscape contribution to the appearance of the area.

Development should ensure that healthy trees within and adjacent to a

development site are retained unless there is strong justification for their

removal. Retained trees should be protected during development and

retained and maintained thereafter. Only trees shown by an arboricultural

survey or any other reason to require removal should be removed and

should be replaced by suitable species, on a three-for-one basis, within the

site. Where that provision is agreed to be elsewhere, suitable locations are

to be selected in consultation with the Parish Council, and planting carried

out at the same time as (or the first planting season immediately

following) any removal.

Policy ENV3: Local Green Spaces

The following spaces, identified on Map 5 and in the Appendix, are

designated Local Green Spaces:

LGS1: Holywell Park (the recreation ground)

LGS2: Pits Wood

LGS3: Dan Quarry

LGS4: Village Green

LGS5: St Paul’s Churchyard

LGS6: Allotments

LGS7: Tennis Courts

LGS8 : Ridge and Furrow Field

LGS9: Library Garden

LGS10: Garden east of the Red Lion

Policy COM1: Retention of Community Facilities

Proposals to change the use of any of the following community facilities

will be permitted only if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer

required or that there is a suitable alternative current provision within the

village:

A. The Post Office

B. The Red Lion public house

C. Shadwell Independent Library and Arts Centre

D. Shadwell Recreational Centre, Holywell Lane

E. The Village Hall

F. The Scout Hut

G. The Methodist Church

H. St Paul's Church

Policy INF1 - Infrastructure Provision and Design

Positively designed development involving the erection of

telecommunications equipment or small-scale low-carbon energy

production equipment will be encouraged providing it does not produce

unacceptable impacts on the character of the village and any heritage

assets and the views and vistas shown on the Policy Map

Policy HOU1 – Housing Mix

Proposals for residential development should, whilst the need remains,

include the provision of housing suitable for older people and/or one and

two-person households.

This leaflet has been prepared by Shadwell Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group as part of the Shadwell Neighbourhood Plan

Pre-submission Consultation 22nd September – 3rd November 2018.

Pre-submission Comments and Action 1

SHADWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION –COMMENTS and CONCLUSIONS

Every comment is shown on subsequent pages. Each has been colour coded according to the key.

KEY:

Amendments made

No change

SECTION/POLICY FROM COMMENT CONCLUSION

1 Introduction (and General Comments)

LS17 Main St Shadwell

I fully support this thorough plan, but why has it taken SO long and SO much work! Observation. No change

Generally excellent! The plan accurately reflects the concerns of the village as shown in the original questionnaire, in particular, the retention of the village character, and resistance to inappropriate development, especially on green belt land.

Observation. No change

LS17 8HA Very Good – Lovely to see preservation of green areas and conservation. Save our green belt land. Observation. No change

xx Ash Hill Drive The Plan seems well thought through. My only concern is an apparent absence of commentary/explanation of the likely impact of the new ring Road development – a very big and imminent change in the locality. A piece on this in Shadwell News might be welcomed… or did I miss it? Thank you to all inputting and preparing the SNP.

Likely impact of ELOR covered in 13.8.2 but is a Highway issue. No change

xx Ash Hill Drive Will the current road between St Johns roundabout and the new access roundabout to the ELOR be dual carriageway?? If not I envisage traffic congestion (standstill) on the ELOR.

Likely impact of congestion on ELOR covered in 13.8.2 but is a Highway issue. No change

LS17 8JT We agree with plan, and appreciate hard efforts in its production. Observation. No change

xx Shadwell Park Close LS17 8TN

Congratulations on providing a clear understandable plan. Observation. No change

LS17 I am, in general, supportive of the plan and its philosophy. Observation. No change

LS17 8JP Planners are frequently dismissive of botanical- or wildlife-conservation matters, and tend to dismiss them when raised. Shadwell, "a green village in the green belt" should try to modify this policy locally.

Further references to biodiversity in Shadwell are now included within policies ENV1,2 and their justification.

pb

Typewriter

Appendix E2



LS17 8JP Congratulations on the biodiversity policies. I would like to make some general comments: hard to suggest specific amendments, but maybe someone could see a way forward. Shadwell does have a good diversity of birds: it has probably been declining over the last twenty years, but that has yet to be proved. In general in this country, suburban (and therefore built up village) gardens now have a greater bird diversity than the surrounding agricultural land, where intensive farming, destruction of hedges etc has inflicted a lot of damage. For the bird species that we see in our gardens, the village may be supporting the bird diversity of the surrounding countryside! This situation is obviously threatened by the destruction of bird-friendly spaces in the village: particularly the accelerating garden in-fills, with the destruction of hedges and bushes. The green spaces, with some exceptions, are predominantly for people, or bedding plants, and are not particularly wild-life friendly. Similar but different situations apply for mammals, insect etc. We should try to bear this in mind when trying to implement development policies, but perhaps also when cultivating the existing areas: Shadwell in Bloom has made a good start by designating a wildflower area by the Red Lion.

Further references to biodiversity in Shadwell are now included within policies ENV1,2 and their justification.

xx Main Street, Shadwell LS17 8EU

I endorse and support the proposed plan, the vision and objectives stated and the policies and priorities within the plan.


LS17 1JL A very comprehensive and well-presented document. I am in agreement with the draft plan presented. The steering group have organised a number of consultation meetings which have enabled many Shadwell residents to keep informed of progress, ask questions and make comments and suggestions of priorities for the plan.


xx Manor Court Leeds LS17 8JE

2.1.1 "residents’ ability to move about safely will have been improved": I start with the observation, which I hope everyone agrees with, that Main Street has reached and surpassed its ability to accommodate any more traffic. It is essential that we reduce the number of cars on the road, and all roads in general. Instead, all our actions lead to an increase in the volume of traffic. Although I am on the whole in favour of the plan, it seems to me that we are just managing the decline. I don't see any measures to improve the traffic situation. We need to stop any new housing development in Shadwell Village immediately, and in particular put an end to "garden grabbing".

Stopping new housing development altogether would not achieve the objectives of the plan and would not be realistic. Limiting vehicle provision in new housing schemes would not necessarily limit vehicles. No change


2,1,1 "residents’ ability to move about safely will have been improved": Over the past 10 years or so, Shadwell Village has increasingly come to resemble a car park. How will this change over the next 10 years? It is essential that we reduce the number of cars on all our roads. Everyone will agree that Main Street has reached and exceeded its capacity to bear any more traffic, and yet I don't see any measures in the plans aimed at solving the problem. It seems to are that we are satisfied with managing the slow decline into traffic chaos. The public transport to the village is inadequate, the day is surely coming when the bus will anyway be unable to navigate Main Street.

I am for the most part in favour of the Neighbourhood plan, I just think we need to be more active in ensuring that no further damage is done to the quality of life in the village, rather than just trying to slow the decline. Thank you for letting me express my opinion, and good luck!

Increased safety is the purpose behind Project P6 (13.8). Planning policies cannot improve public transport. Capacity issue dealt with above. No change



LS17 8JH Clause 1.2.4 “Policies as well as local policy set out in Leeds City Council’s Core Strategy and Site Allocations Plans”

The Site Allocation Plan May 2017 includes sites in Shadwell which should be included in the NP on a map describing their intended use.

The SAP is currently subject to examination and non-allocated sites submitted as representations would only be included in the NP if allocated in the adopted SAP. No change

LS17 8JH 1. Whereas this NP is specifically for Shadwell shouldn’t there be mention of the effect of development in surrounding Parishes and vice versa and how this is managed. This is particularly relevant where adjacent land is only accessible from Shadwell.

Development in neighbouring parishes should not affect Shadwell, except in the case of Holywell Lane where the access to land within Harewood Parish is in Shadwell. Reference to this is now made in para 4.2.3 in the justification for policy HLC1

LS17 8JH 2. There is some discussion on trees, what happened to hedges? There are some ancient hedges which should be maintained. Field hedges show the ancient field system and unless they are protected and repaired will be lost forever.

Hedges are referred to extensively in section 7 (ENV1), but not in section 8 (ENV2), where they should also feature as important element in the landscape. ENV2 Policy heading changed to “Trees, Hedges and Gardens” and policy wording changed to include hedges with similar requirements to trees.

LS17 8JH 3. What happened to wells from which our place name is derived ? Aren’t these important non-designated heritage assets ? There are a number of wells located on the 1851 OS map including a public well in Holywell Lane called Holy Well, the latter is also shown on the Inclosure Award map.

Evidence of the exact location of the wells, and particularly the “Holy Well” is not sufficiently reliable for identification.

LS17 8JH I'm sure you will remember how our NP was Professionally rejected because we shouldn't copy another parishes idea even though the Guidance notes provided by Leeds clearly stated we could do as we liked. Clearly the Guidance notes were not clear enough and misunderstood by the Professionals. Even my clear guidance notes to use another Parishes idea to edit, amend and add to as required for Shadwell was apparently unclear and misunderstood by the Professionals. Our NP should be clear in its intention and not leave anything to chance. This is vitally important since our NP includes unclear items which may have a detrimental impact on Shadwell one day and as I have clearly demonstrated here the Professionals will use their skill and experience to interpret these any way they wish.

What are the things that "may" need attention in the Conservation area? What might others interpret "small" developments as meaning - how small is small or how big is small?

By accepting the SNP we will have declared our hand and leave it open for Leeds to interpret it in any way it wishes and we would find it difficult if not impossible to counter argue. The same must be said of a Developer who would be looking to exploit ambiguous statements to their advantage.

Various references to “may” and “small” have been clarified where necessary Para 4.2.8 re “may be parts…that have a negative effect” has been removed.



Does anybody in Shadwell understand "Leeds City Council’s Core Strategy and Site Allocations Plans"? It is noted that the strategy and plans have not been approved but this clause is the crux of the SNP and is what Leeds wants us to accept. By accepting the SNP means that we will accept their core strategy and site allocation plans leaving us with no room for manoeuvre. This is Shadwell's NP not Leeds's, they can still have their Core Strategy etc. but we don't have to accept it here and certainly not when it isn't approved.

Amend Policies explanation at 1.2.4 to refer to “adopted Leeds Local Plan” It is not correct that the NP doesn’t have to accept the Core Strategy when adopted.. NPPF: “Neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan”.

LS17 8JN The needs of the very young and very old are recognised in the Neighbourhood Plan. The needs of older children and young adults are neglected.

Project P1 Play areas includes the aim of provision for young people (older children). All groups will benefit from all policies. No evidence has emerged of any particular needs of these groups. No change

Carter Jonas Note: Carter Jonas have made identical representations on behalf of: a) Elizabeth Hastings Estate Charity; and b) Simon Burnett. To avoid repetition, the representations are shown once, from Carter Jonas.

the introduction (section 1.1) should refer to the Plan area, i.e. the Parish, rather than the village which is only one constituent part.

Amendments throughout so that “Parish” and “Shadwell” refers to the Neighbourhood Area, and “village” refers to the village envelope.

In reviewing the NPD, there is a substantial amount of text that is simply transcribed from the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as published by the Government in March 2012. This is repetitive and we would suggest it is unnecessary; removal of such text would make the Plan, as a whole, more succinct.

Many users of the Plan will wish to understand the context of government and local policy within which it sits. Some Examiners have expressed a preference for the exact NPPF wording to be used rather than a paraphrase, and a simple NPPF paragraph reference will not be understandable by all users. No change.

This point is made in the context that the 2012 Framework was replaced wholesale by the National Planning Policy Framework Review (the 2018 Framework) document issued on 24 th July 2018. Whilst the 2018 Framework sets out policy for the determination of planning applications from the date of its publication, transitional arrangements are included for the examination of development plan documents, including neighbourhood plans. Paragraph 214, along with Footnote 69, specify that Neighbourhood Plans at Regulation 15 stage before 24 th January 2019, should be examined against the 2012 document, those submitted after that date (i.e. 25 th January 2019 onwards) are examined through the 2018 Framework.

A number of recent Examination Inspectors have taken a pragmatic approach to interpreting Paragraph 214 in seeking to ensure that development plans are, in essence, “future-proofed”. In that regard the following representations are made in the light of the 2018 Framework, as this gives neighbourhood plans a greater role in shaping, directing and delivering sustainable development in the plan area (paragraph 29).

References to the original NPPF have been changed to refer to the 2018 version.



Moreover, paragraph 66 suggests that the planning authority (i.e. Leeds City Council) should provide indicative housing figures, with paragraph 69 giving neighbourhood groups the opportunity to consider the suitability of and to allocate small and medium-sized sites for housing within the plan area. Paragraph 136 suggests this may include the review and changes to Green Belt boundaries. Section 12 of the 2018 Framework identifies how neighbourhood plans can also play a role in identifying the special qualities of the area and how this should be reflected in development.

IB Planning for xx National Planning Policy Guidance published in July this year makes it explicit at paragraph 13 that Neighbourhood Plans should support the delivery of strategic policies contained in Local Plans or Spatial Development Strategies and should shape and direct development that is outside of these strategic policies. The Plan should positively support local development and is also required to be deliverable. The Neighbourhood Plan in it’s current form fails to meet these national planning policy requirements, ignores the strategic policies of the adopted Leeds Core Strategy and seeks to introduce aspects that are not consistent with the emerging Leeds Site Allocations Plan which is still to be finalised. The Neighbourhood Plans statement at paragraph 1.2.1 is therefore fundamentally incorrect.

Furthermore as acknowledged within paragraph 1.2.7 the Neighbourhood Plan in it’s current form also fails to meet the basic conditions set out in national policy guidance. Most specifically it –

- Doesn’t contribute to the achievement of sustainable development ; and

- It is not in conformity with the strategic policies contained in the Development Plan

for the area of the Authority.

In summary, the Neighbourhood Plan in it’s current form is flawed and unsound.

Local development is indeed supported by the NP in HOU1 and other policies, which only seeks to ensure it is suitable for the needs and character of Shadwell. It is considered that the NP does contribute to sustainable development and that it is in conformity with the Local Plan. This view is endorsed by LCC and will be for the Examiner to determine. No change.

Leeds Local Access Forum

The LLAF suggests that consideration should be given to including a policy that supports the protection, improvement and expansion of the public rights of way network.

Public Rights of Way included in Policy ENV1

Historic England No reference has been made to views within, or and from Shadwell, and this may lead to harm to any such views.

Suggested action: Include a new section which identifies key views, and develop a policy which protects such views.

New Map 5 and annotated key views in new table. Map 3 amended accordingly. Specific reference to views on Maps 3 and 5 added within ENV1 and HLC3.

LCC As you will be aware, the Site Allocations Plan (SAP) Examination has taken place and the Council are awaiting the Inspectors final report. It is not anticipated that there will be any direct consequences for the Shadwell Neighbourhood Plan but it would be wise to be aware that the SAP has yet to be adopted and elements may be subject to change

With minor amendments to the wording the NP now refers to “proposals” in the SAP. If anything of significance to Shadwell changes before NP submission, a number of aspects of the NP may need revision.

LCC In July 2018, Government published an update to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Annex 1 to the 2018 NPPF sets out transitional arrangements for plan-making, although for decision taking the 2012 NPPF has now been superseded. Annex 1 establishes that plans submitted on or before 24 th January 2019

References to the original NPPF have been changed to refer to the 2018 version.



will be examined against the 2012 NPPF, plans submitted after the 24 th January 2019 will be examined against the 2018 NPPF.

Consideration should be given to the anticipated submission date for the neighbourhood plan, and the subsequent impact it will have on the references to the NPPF in the neighbourhood plan and on the Basic Conditions Statement, if it has already been drafted.

LCC At examination, a neighbourhood plan will be judged on whether it complies with the Basic Conditions set out in paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. These are:

a) Having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State

b) The making of the order (or neighbourhood plan) contributes to the achievement of sustainable development

c) That making of the order (or neighbourhood plan) is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area of the authority.

d) The making of the order (or neighbourhood plan) does not breach, and is otherwise compatible with, EU obligations.

It is considered that the Shadwell Neighbourhood Plan meets the Basic Conditions


LCC Proposed Conservation Area – the plan seems to be written with the assumption that the proposed Conservation Area will be adopted. A view needs to be taken on how this is referenced at the time of submission (proposed Conservation Area may be best).

Holywell Triangle CA adopted 8th November 2019. No change

LCC Cultural and community facilities - although there is a reference within the vision to ‘existing valued cultural and community facilities and structures will have been retained and/or sensitively improved to provide a stimulating social and educational environment for all’. There is no reference to school provision under community facilities or anywhere else in the draft plan. Due to its village location, the majority of children in the village access places at Shadwell Primary School.

School included in list of community facilities in Policy COM1

LCC Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) - the Vision states that by 2033 development will have been small scale. However, the parish council is likely to receive a portion of CIL and consideration should be given in the plan to how this could be spent.

Additional wording in the Delivery Plan

LCC Biodiversity – there is no mention of the natural environment but this could be addressed as follows:

• Include a map showing the 2014 Leeds Habitat Network for the Neighbourhood Area – showing areas also outside area to demonstrate nearby linkages. This information can be accessed from West Yorkshire Ecology, the Council can facilitate contact with them should the Parish Council wish. Core Strategy Policy G9 seeks enhancements to this Network and at the neighbourhood plan level it would be useful to have an objective of mapping local extensions to the Leeds Habitat Network based on further aerial photo interpretation, ground surveys and local knowledge to bring in smaller water courses, species-rich hedgerows, locally valuable lines of trees, etc. The 2014 Leeds Habitat Network may have omitted some

References already included and now added to in section on Rural Environment (7.2.6, 7.2.7). Also additional references in section on Trees, Hedges and Gardens. Map 5 Local Green Spaces also includes areas identified on the Leeds Habitat Network



locally important habitats so this is an opportunity for the neighbourhood plan to ensure these are also recognised.

• New developments – all new buildings should have integral bat roosting and bird nesting provision - could be specific for Swifts if Shadwell wants to contribute to the Leeds Swifts project aiming to make Leeds a Swift Friendly City https://www.startbirding.co.uk/leeds-swifts/

2 Vision and Objectives

LS17 Very pleased to see the plan in its hopefully final form. It appears to be carefully considered and thoughtfully (perhaps professionally) put together. Particularly pleased to see the residents' general feeling (including that discussed at the Open Day back in 2013) echoed in the 'Vision For Shadwell'. My only hope now is that the Council actually pays attention to the Plan in determining planning applications and appeals affecting our village.


LS17 1JL I fully support all the 9 objectives. They are appropriate for achieving the vision expressed by Shadwell residents


IB Planning for xx Within the stated objectives of this policy is to provide for the housing needs of the village. This objective is supported but the Plan identifies no housing allocations at all to address these needs during the Plan period to 2033, a period of 15 years. This is considered wholly inappropriate in providing a level of growth consistent with the character and form of the settlement and providing certainty that these needs can be met in a deliverable way.

The objectives support development which would meet the needs of residents in the future. Allocations are not required – change will be through re-development and windfall where is meets NP policies. No change

Carter Jonas Section 2 of the NPD sets out the vision for the plan area. Generally the points are supported but should reflect the plan area; as phrased it focuses upon the village.

Amendments included to provide greater consistency in use of “Village” and “Shadwell” for clarity.

The vision should also be supportive of providing homes (and jobs) on small and medium sized sites, even where this includes the use of surrounding countryside where this is consistent with the character and spatial quality of the area. In this regard there appears to be disjoint between the second and fifth bullet points.

We would suggest that the second part of the second bullet point “without encroaching on the surrounding countryside” is deleted.

The vision supports small-scale development which would meet the needs of residents in the future. There is no conflict between this and small sites, though there may be for medium sized sites (depending on definition). It is not accepted that this might mean encroaching on the countryside. Propose no change.

3 Policy GEN1 – Enhancing the village

anon Irrespective of wishes of Village Community it seems that there is little effect of housing needs. This comment not fully understood. No change.

LS17 8JH With particular reference to the stated points of this policy, how can we possibly trust that the Parish Council will exercise proper control when planning permission has already been granted for the current development on Shadwell main Street: Hyrst View [129 Main St]. This development is massively out of scale with the surrounding homes, including the existing flats. The three new buildings are glorified HMOs and

GEN1 sets the tone for development in the village.



given the likely level of occupancy, there will no doubt be multiple cars per household and there is bound to be a negative impact on local roads. This does not inspire confidence for the future of our village.

[same comment at HLC3]

References in GEN 1 to “village atmosphere removed” and replaced by more precise description.

LS17 8JN P7: Developments should improve the provision of community facilities... Developers use the existing community facilities to promote their own developments, future developments will expect to use the existing facilities. Future developments should demonstrate an investment into the existing facilities particularly the non-commercial facilities (items C -H outlined in COM1) + school.

Infrastructure and education contributions from developers are included in Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions required, under government legislation, from development creating new floorspace. No change

P7: Development should retain and enhance village atmosphere/ promote easier access for (local residents) The village is long and thin the Main Street is a "rat run" for through traffic. The majority of the residential area of the village could be made "Resident and Bus Access only" if a sympathetic tree lined road development of Colliers Lane and Winn Moor Lane was undertaken between the Red Lion and The Wellington Pub. Probably stopping a thousand vehicles a day from passing the primary school unnecessarily but still allowing this traffic to use the post office, Red Lion and shops in the village.

These are highway issues which cannot be controlled by planning policies for development. No change.

Historic England We note that the character of Shadwell is assessed in Appendix B, but there is no reference within Policies GEN1,HLC1 or HLC3 to this Appendix.

Suggested action:

GEN1: Re-word 1st bullet point as follows:

• retain and enhance the village character and atmosphere by ensuring development respects and adheres to the local character and design guidance as set out in Appendix B.

GEN 1, as an overarching policy, needs to remain strategic rather than detailed. Additional references to the appendices is provided in para.3.3.2, together with an indication of how they will be used to consider proposals for development.

LCC The use of “atmosphere” is fairly vague and might be difficult to use to help determine planning applications. Perhaps more could be said about how this could be applied to development proposals? On balance, the preference would be to use an alternative word. However, it is understood that the Parish Council feel that the word is important and appropriate for Shadwell so it may wish to leave it in the draft to be considered at examination. If this is the case, then suggest evidence is provided to back-up the use of the word as 3.1-3.3.3 is sparse.

The preamble/justification for the policy has been expanded to include a more detailed description of what is meant by the village atmosphere. “atmosphere” in GEN1 has been changed to “Shadwell’s distinct identity including its historic rural setting, its heritage assets and its visual character”

4 Policy HCL1 – Development in Conservation Areas

anon The outpouring of protest regarding development opposite Minster View and 130 Shadwell Lane [Main St?] indicates lack of ability to affect planning.


LS17 8JP Applications in and adjacent to the Conservation Area should comply with the Conservation Area policy document, additionally to the Neighbourhood Plan 2. LISTED BUILDINGS All applications for alteration or development to or WTHIN THE SETTING of listed buildings should comply with the English Heritage

As Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings are dealt with under different legislation, there is no necessity for the



Guidelines. As knowledge of these Guidelines, and best practice, is not necessarily widely available to Planners in Leeds, it is necessary that experts from English Heritage should be consulted and their opinions and recommendations be made public.

NP to repeat guidance provided elsewhere. No change.

ID Planning, on behalf of xx

I write on behalf of my client, Mr Peter Wooler owner of Spencer House, in respect of the Shadwell Draft Neighbourhood Plan. Mr Wooler lives in Spencer House, a large detached property set within private grounds in the Holywell Lane Triangle. The pre-submission Neighbourhood Plan seeks to include the Spencer House and its grounds in the proposed Holywell Triangle Conservation Area. Such a designation is not considered appropriate for this site as the property will significantly change in light of the extant and pending planning permissions on the site. There is an approved outline application for a residential development of 3 dwellings in the rear garden of Spencer House (16/04922/OT). The Officer’s Report for this application stated in the conclusion that “the site is not critical in its contribution to the balance between built and open spaces”. Furthermore, the council are intending to approve a full planning application for 9 dwellings on the site that will include four new build dwellings and the conversion of Spencer House into 5 dwellings. It must be appreciated that the land is private property with no public access and views into the site from Main Street and Holywell Lane are significantly screened by mature trees and hedges. It is considered that the grounds, whilst attractively manicured, do not make a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the proposed Conservation Area in any public sense, as they are scarcely visible from public land and it is likely that they will be developed for 9 houses in the near future. It is considered that the conservation area boundary should be drawn to omit Spencer House and its grounds.

The designation of the Conservation Area is not part of the Neighbourhood Plan. No change

LS17 8JH Clause 4.2.8 “Conversely, there may be parts of the Conservation Area which have a negative effect on its appearance and any development involving these should aim to enhance that appearance”.

Either there are or there aren’t any parts which have a negative effect, “may be” tells us nothing. If there are any negative effects then you must list them here to enable Developers to understand what is needed to satisfy this issue.

The Conservation Area Appraisals include Action points aimed at enhancing negative aspects of the CAs. Omit 4.2.8

It is noted that some public buildings have not been constructed with materials compatible with Shadwell have not been listed namely the School (in the Conservation Area), the Recreation Centre (in the new Conservation Area) and the Scout Hut. Should any of these or all of them ever be rebuilt or moved and any other new public building needed what is the construction expected by this SNP ? If none is stated then the Council will expect to build to the current standard in Shadwell for publicly owned buildings. We appear to operate a double standard now - one for private owners and developers and one for Leeds City Council. A policy is needed for Public Buildings.

All buildings, public or otherwise, will be governed both by the guidance in the CAAs and the policies within the NP. There can be no distinction on the basis of ownership. No change

Carter Jonas Both policies (HLC1 and HLC2) require an understanding of the asset and how the development will be benefit the area. As a first point it is appropriate that any such evidence, be it a “statement” (HLC1) or otherwise (HLC2), must be proportionate to nature and scale of the proposal. Any such evidence should be proportionate to the proposal under consideration.

Change HLC1 to include “…a statement, proportionate to the scale of the development, demonstrating:” [see appraisal of the same comments at HLC2]



Historic England We note that the character of Shadwell is assessed in Appendix B, but there is no reference within Policies GEN1, HLC1 or HLC3 to this Appendix.

Suggested action:

HLC1: Re-word 1st bullet point as follows:

• an understanding of the historic significance of the site and its setting as set out in Appendix B.

Reference added as suggested

LCC Ok.

Some examiners will delete such a policy as they consider a policy covering development in a Conservation Area to be outside the scope of the neighbourhood plan. Perhaps more could be said about why this policy is needed in Shadwell?

Added more detail, in the justification, of the special characteristics of Shadwell that need to be considered in any heritage statement. Remove sentence in Policy stating that development should respect the character of the CAs as this is the requirement of a CA anyway.

5 Policy HLC2 – Development involving non-designated heritage assets

LS17 1JL I agree with the conservation ideas and the listing of many village assets so that development does not affect them and adversely affect the character of Shadwell.

Observation. No comment

Carter Jonas Both policies (HLC1 and HLC2) require an understanding of the asset and how the development will be benefit the area. As a first point it is appropriate that any such evidence, be it a “statement” (HLC1) or otherwise (HLC2), must be proportionate to nature and scale of the proposal. Any such evidence should be proportionate to the proposal under consideration. Also, Policy HLC2 is not clear as it relates to “the future of Shadwell”; does this include the village or the Parish plan area?

Add “proportionate to the scale of development” to HLC1. HLC2 only requires the design to show an understanding: it either does or doesn’t and cannot therefore be “proportionate”.

IB Planning for xx My client’s site does not lie within either of the village Conservation Areas but is identified within the current Plan as a Non Designated Heritage Asset. 28 such sites are identified within the Plan and my clients site is part of number 27. The plan attached to this correspondence identifies site 27 edged red and my client’s site hatched red within it. The principal reason for this proposed designation is that the fields are the only remaining visible field markings in Shadwell, that these markings provide a link to Shadwell’s agricultural history and by virtue of it’s age, rarity and social value the site is included as a Non Designated Heritage Asset. This proposed designation is fundamentally disputed and the designation should be removed from the Plan. My client’s archaeological advisor has considered this policy in detail and her report is attached to this submission. It is clearly the position based upon all the available evidence that there is no justification for this proposed designation and it should be deleted.

Ridge and Furrow field removed from list of heritage assets. Instead, reference is made to the HER; LIDAR evidence of ridge and furrow across Shadwell; Historic England’s comments and the Historic Landscape Characterisation Study to provide evidence for including the whole of Shadwell’s historic rural landscape as a non-designated heritage asset.

LCC Ok.

This section reads well and provides robust evidence. It is recommended that individual site plans are provided which show the buildings and their curtilages (in addition to Map 3), this has been a modification made at other neighbourhood plan examinations.

Maps added

6 Policy HCL3 – Positive Design

LS17 8JP Final bullet point: suggest should read: “boundary walls, hedges etc” Policy wording changed to include hedges and with more specific reference to hard landscape features.



anon Recent developments don’t indicate that much can affect tree planting etc. Lack of maintenance to flats at 225 [Main St] is prime example, and character of 3 three houses at 229 [Main St]

Observation. No change.

LS17 8JH With particular reference to the stated points of this policy, how can we possibly trust that the Parish Council will exercise proper control when planning permission has already been granted for the current development on Shadwell main Street: Hyrst View [129 Main St]. This development is massively out of scale with the surrounding homes, including the existing flats. The three new buildings are glorified HMOs and given the likely level of occupancy, there will no doubt be multiple cars per household and there is bound to be a negative impact on local roads. This does not inspire confidence for the future of our village.

[same comment at GEN1]

HLC3 can control excessive massing or scale. Like all policies it will be LCC Development Management who will make decisions. No change.

Historic England We note that the character of Shadwell is assessed in Appendix B, but there is no reference within Policies GEN1, HLC1 or HLC3 to this Appendix.

Suggested action:

HLC3: Re-word 1st bullet point as follows:

• Any new building, alteration or extension should aim to achieve excellence in design, by adhering to the Design Guidance set out in Appendix 2, recognising and enhancing local distinctiveness and character, as set out in appendix 2, including:….

references to Appendices added to Policy

LCC Although “excellence” is often used in planning, it may be worthwhile thinking more about what this means for Shadwell. The introductory paragraphs to the policy read well. However, although ‘objective 2’ refers to “the existing visual character of the village”, there is nowhere in the plan that succinctly sets this out. It is acknowledged that this is expressed in depth in Appendix B. It would be helpful to do this in chapter 6, prior to the policy.

Additional paragraphs have been included in the justification to HLC3, a) setting out a definition of “excellence” in design and b)setting out a brief description of the character of areas outside the conservation areas.

There is an opportunity to mention streets and open spaces – for instance, surface finishes, furniture, lighting, etc. ‘Boundary walls etc.’ is a vague reference; perhaps ‘boundary treatment, e.g. walls, hedges, and fences.

Policy wording changed to include hedges and with more specific reference to hard landscape features.

7 Policy ENV1 – Rural Environment

LS17 1JL It is very important to me that our community has influence over local development. Keeping our Green Belt and rural setting is essential to retain our village character.


LS17 8JH 7.2.3 “The western part of the built-up area of the village is at the highest point of an undulating landscape, with shallow valleys to the north, east and west. This provides for a variety of attractive medium and short distance views of fields, hedgerows, hedgerow trees and woodland within its folds, which are an important characteristic of the village”.

There are also panoramic long distance views over Leeds to the Pennines, west to Wharfedale and over the Vale of York to The North Yorkshire Moors.

Map 5 showing annotated views (with subsequent number changes for succeeding maps), plus a table identifying these views, has been added, together with additional references in the text.



LS17 8JH 7.2.6 “The local flora and fauna is extremely diverse, especially given its proximity to the city centre. For instance, there are thriving badger, deer, and vole populations; red kites and kestrels are commonly seen above agricultural land, and woodpeckers and owls are common within the woodland areas. “

“Shadwell and its People” provides a comprehensive list of plants growing in and around Shadwell on page 117 and on page 119 there is a similar description of birds seen in Shadwell.

Add reference to Shadwell and its People at 7.2.6

Carter Jonas Policy ENV1 in Section 7 makes reference to the Rural Environment, although again (as others) the policy seeks to refer to the “village envelope”; this would seemingly exclude that part of the Parish which is part of the Main Urban Area (MUA) referred to as “Shadwell Parks”. It is not clear why there is a distinction.

The Village Envelope is defined on Map 2 as including Shadwell Parks. However, for clarity, references have been changed throughout, so that: Shadwell = Parish Village envelope = Village + Shadwell Parks. Village = Village envelope minus Shadwell Parks References such as “village life” refer to the abstract qualities relating to all residents within Shadwell

Reference is made to the “distant views” on shown on Map 3. A series of arrows are included which are not labelled on the key. These arrows point from various parts of the village and may be generic, but there is no detail of what views they represent or what subject they are aimed at. Furthermore, they seem to exclude the Shadwell Parks area.

Map 5 showing annotated views (with subsequent number changes for succeeding maps), plus a table identifying these views, has been added together with additional references in the text.

IB Planning for xx This policy states that development will be within the currently defined village envelope unless allocated for development in the Site Allocations Plan. As referenced earlier the Site Allocations Plan is still subject to significant uncertainty particularly in respect of the most appropriate locations for new housing allocations within the Outer North East area. The Neighbourhood Plan should not pre-determine matters that are yet to be finalised within the Site Allocations Plan.

The policy allows for future site allocations by the Leeds Local Plan to take precedence. It does not therefore pre-determine it. No change

Historic England This policy could be amended or supplemented by a further policy protecting any identified historic landscape which contributes to the setting of the village.

Suggested action:

Add a policy to protect identified historic landscapes which contribute to the setting of the village.

Shadwell’s historic landscape as a whole has been included as a heritage asset.


Page 18 Paragraph 7.2.: The LLAF endorses the comments made by the Council’s Public Rights of Way (PRoW) section (see Map 7 LCC comments) that, instead of several footpaths, a better description would be

References to PROWs amended.



several Public Footpaths / Bridleways, thus including public bridleways which give access for horse riders and pedal cyclists as well as walkers.

LCC This seems to rule out any form of modern development, which could be acceptable within the Green Belt. Flexibility should be introduced to the policy to avoid being overly onerous.

Add “its” to “small-scale groups” to indicate this is what exists (which must be respected). This will not then preclude modern interpretations of the concepts.

LCC From a Public Rights of Way perspective the pre-submission draft plan refers to the existence of ‘several footpaths` in Shadwell at paragraph 7.2.8 but omits to mention public bridleways (which give access for horse riders and pedal cyclists as well as walkers), of which there are a number. It would also be worth emphasising that the footpaths, and any bridleways, that are referred to in the context of public rights of way should be described as Public Footpaths / Bridleways.

References to PROWs amended.

8 Policy ENV2: Trees and Gardens

anon Development at 229 Main Street contradicts this. Well maintained garden has led to concrete patio/paths/drive. Virtually lost the garden.

Observation of pre-NP development. No change.

LS17 8JP Particular attention should be paid to the retention of native trees which are belong to a threatened species (e.g. Ash, Elm, Horse chestnut, Oak). Particular attention should also be paid to individual trees (whether or not a threatened species) which are playing host to species of insect or other wildlife which are themselves threatened or of conservation concern. Relevant conservation documents should be consulted; eg. Red Data Book, Biodiversity Action Plans.

Included as an additional justification for ENV2, which is as robust as it can be.

LS17 8JP From a wildlife and conservation point of view, hedges (and even bushes) can be as important as trees. Bushes are hard to regulate, but some recognition can be given to hedges. They act as roosting and nesting places for birds, and as corridors for wildlife in general, within the village and between the village and other sources of wildlife. Also as orientation markers for bats, and porous boundaries (compared with fences) for hedgehogs (deeply threatened) to pass between gardens while hunting for food. THEREFORE We suggest the following policy for hedges.

“Hedges should be retained, especially those which are in one or more of the following categories

1. Boundaries of the Conservation area

2. Historic or ancient

3. Large (over 1.8 m high and/or 1m wide)[except lylandii]

4. Of significant wildlife value

5. Act as wildlife corridors within and into the village

They should be accorded protection in line with current best arboricultural practice, with root protection zones of (default) 2.5 m from the hedge surface.”

Agricultural hedges not within or bounding the curtilage of a dwelling house are covered by the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. Policy heading changed to “Trees, Hedges and Gardens” and policy wording changed to include hedges with similar requirements to trees.

LS17 1JL The conservation and controlled development of trees and gardens will also help to keep our village character. The well-being of residents is affected by our environment…..




LCC This policy has changed significantly from the ‘policy intentions’ version and as written is fairly prescriptive. However, the evidence provided to support the policy is good.


9 Policy ENV3: Local Green Spaces

LS17 8JW ENV1: Brandon Golf Course – should be protected from owners selling at some time to a developer for housing. [Same comment at COM1]

Brandon Golf Course is not within the Neighbourhood =Parish boundary. No change

LS17 1JL …..the local green spaces are another aspect of Shadwell to retain to keep Shadwell a pleasant place to live. Observation. No change

LS17 8JN 16.2.1 the school playing field should be recognised as a Local Green Space. It is not just used by the school. It is used for summer village events and hired out to Shadwell Football Club

(comment also included at Appendix C)

This area was initially outside the “village envelope”, but included so that the VE would coincide with the Green Belt boundary. There may be future changes to the school which would be supported by the community, but which designation as LGS could affect. No change.

LS17 8LW Off Ash Hill Lane – adjacent to stables and horse training area – an area of managed woodland at present open to public – a beautiful area of mixed woodland – well-managed. Could this area be added to green spaces?

No further comments received on this land and owner unidentified No change

LS17 9NE Holywell Park – scope for improvement. Possibility of CCTV at Holywell Park Not included as a project. LCC responsibility.

Carter Jonas There is no particular comment on the proposed areas (defined as Local Green Spaces) which all appear to fall outside of the Charity’s and Mr Burnett’s ownerships. As a general comment however, it is suggested that where these areas fall within the Green Belt, the LGS designation would seem superfluous and unnecessary.

Both GB and LGS can allow development in exceptional circumstances, but these circumstances could be different in each. No change for this reason.

IB Planning for xx This policy deals with Local Green Spaces seeking to retain sites which contribute to the character and quality of life within Shadwell. Three contributors to this are stated – visual attributes, historic associations and use for recreation. My client’s site is identified as part of LGS 8 in the Plan by virtue of it’s historic relevance to the village. As is demonstrated within the submitted report in relation to Policy HLC 2 there is no historic relevance of my client’s site to the village and as such this proposed designation should also be removed. Furthermore my client’s landscape advisor has considered this aspect in detail and his report is also attached to this correspondence. This concludes in relation to the other two contributing factors to Local Green Spaces that the site has limited visual attributes and given the land is in private ownership has no public access for recreational use. The principal visual attributes of the settlement clearly lie to it’s north reflected in it’s Special Landscape designation and within the areas defined as being within the Conservation Areas. This position is further substantiated by the conclusions of a Historic Settlement Study of Shadwell submitted as part of the Site Allocations Plan case which identifies my client’s site as being the most appropriate location for new development within Shadwell whilst respecting the historical aspirations

Agreed. Remove from list of Local Green Spaces.



of the settlement. A copy of this study is also attached. It is clearly the position based upon all the available evidence that there is no justification for this proposed designation and it should be deleted.

LCC OK.

Add, development on the Local Green Space will not be acceptable other than in very special circumstances to provide a policy statement.

Accepted. Sentence added to Policy

10 Policy COM1: Retention of Community Facilities

LS17 8JW Brandon Golf Course – should be protected from owners selling at some time to a developer for housing. [Same comment at ENV3]

Brandon Golf Course is not within the Neighbourhood =Parish boundary. No change.

Shadwell Village Store – if closed nearest would be Slaid Hill or Moortown – not acceptable for elderly people.

This is covered within Appendix D. No change

anon Perfect. Let’s hope that the village will support this policy. Especially the Post Office. Observation. No change.

LS17 1JL A vibrant community has a range of facilities provided - housing and other facilities suitable for different residents is very important for the character of Shadwell.


LS17 8JH Clause 10.2.3 “Protecting the social aspect of life in a rural village will hopefully attract a diverse and young population which is essential to enable Shadwell to thrive. In 15 years the aim is that there will be sufficient numbers of families living in the village to support the varied clubs and societies and who hire the existing community buildings to ensure their maintenance, survival and if necessary replacement.”

Shadwell is an attractive place to live with lots going on and well supported whilst retaining its independence. The fact that the school is full indicates that there is a diverse and young population now. It is noted that under Clause 17 Communal Facilities that all are well supported now, what evidence is there that this will not continue?

This policy provides no evidence as to how it will ever be achieved but if accepted will give Leeds City Council the absolute authority to build any number of houses to sustain sentence two. However, sentence two is indeterminate as there is no guarantee that there will ever be enough families to sustain all clubs and societies. This policy provides no guidance as to what the optimum number of families is needed to support the clubs and societies and its buildings.

Potentially with the new orbital road providing good access, Shadwell will be completely built up in fifteen years and Shadwell will be lost to Leeds and the Parish Council will be incapable of preventing it happening. There may still not be enough families to sustain the clubs and societies and its buildings.

The policies aim for a balanced approach to the provision of suitable housing for the community needs without adversely affecting the character of the village. To ensure the balance is maintained, there will need to be continuous monitoring of the effects of the NP. The existing facilities are well-supported now and the aim is that in 15 years time they will continue to be as well supported. Amend 10.2.3 to: “Protecting the social aspect of life in a rural village will help ensure there is a diverse and young population enabling Shadwell to thrive. In 15 years the aim is that the varied clubs and societies will continue to flourish and ensure the maintenance, survival and if necessary replacement of existing community buildings”

LS17 8JN P27: Why is the primary school not recognised as a community facility? The Primary School and Tennis Club courts have been added to the list of community facilities.



P27: Shadwell Tennis Club should be recognised as a non-commercial community facility for existing and future residents

P27: Shadwell United Football Club should be recognised as a non-commercial community facility for existing and future residents

P27: Shadwell Cricket Club should be recognised as a non-commercial community facility for existing and future residents

The policy is to protect facilities, not activities, which planning cannot control. No change

LCC Ok. Observation. No change.

11 Policy INF1 - Infrastructure Provision and Design

LS17 1JL Looking ahead, the steering group have rightly considered the impact of technological developments and the wish to be involved in future plans.



11.3.1"Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions" :

I propose an immediate stop to any further housing development in Shadwell Village. Any new house will inevitably add two cars to the road. It is also obvious that our sewers are under strain. In particular, we should block any attempt at "garden grabbing" - this anti-social activity is to no-one's benefit but a handful of property developers. Are we to sacrifice the quality of life of Shadwell's residents to satisfy the greed of the few?

The policies aim for a balanced approach to the provision of suitable housing for the community needs without adversely affecting the character of the village. No change


11.3.1” The NPPF considers that part of the environmental role of planning is to use natural resources prudently”:

Our actions are achieving the opposite of this. We are using up resources as if the are endless. We need to develop a plan to start reversing the uncontrolled building that has been taking place over the last few decades, both in Shadwell Village and also everywhere else.

The policies aim for a balanced approach to the provision of suitable housing for the community needs without adversely affecting the character of the village. No change

LCC Ok. Observation. No change.

12 Policy HOU1 – Housing Mix

LS17 1JT Ash Hill Drive

While finding the overall plan very positive I would raise one concern - when was the last time one smaller home was built and what is the likelihood of one being built in the foreseeable future. I make this comment particularly in view of the comments regarding dissuading the development of large gardens

The same comment is included under Appendix B

The policy aims to rectify that, whilst not being unduly restrictive. No change.

LS17 1JL A very significant issue for the village to keep and enhance a community feel. Larger family properties seem to have been built in the 30 years I have lived here. There has not been an appropriate balance of providing smaller homes for other age groups.



If the remains of the cricket ground opposite the Red Lion becomes available for building, priority should be given to sheltered housing, as this would be the ideal site, due to its proximity to all services.

The site could be developed but there is no indication from the landowner that it might be brought forward during the period of the plan No change



Carter Jonas Reflecting upon the earlier comments regarding the 2018 Framework the evidence presented in the NPD under Section 12 (Housing) indicates a need for housing for downsizers and first time buyers, along with general market housing. It would seem appropriate for the Plan to consider opportunities to provide such accommodation. Generally the table at Paragraph 12.2.2 demonstrates the Census changes between 2001 and 2011, suggesting a fall in the Parish population of around 5%. This is most notable in the under-18’s population which suggests a drop in this age group of around 15%.

Additional text within the justification and Policy HOU1 amended to include target for level of small household provision,

As a point of caution, the same section (12.3.3. to 12.3.6) makes reference to the Core Strategy (CS) Review which is a draft document along with the Site Allocations Plan (SAP) which, although well advanced in the preparation process, having considered two stages of Hearings, is not without problems.

Change references to include “proposals” set by the CS (Review).

IB Planning for xx This policy seeks to encourage the provision of housing for older and 1 / 2 person households and this objective is supported. However, as referenced earlier the Plan in it’s current form proposes no housing allocations during the Plan period and as a consequence it is questioned as to how this objective is realistically capable of delivery. The Plan should look to create certainty and identify an opportunity or opportunities that would deliver this objective in a positive way to the benefit of Shadwell.

Paragraphs inserted to outline how the Plan allows for additional housing without allocation of specific sites

LCC The worded policy includes no threshold upon which to require an element of housing suitable for older people and/or 1 and 2 person households. An application for 5 dwellings in a garden site, for example, would seem to preclude the provision of large, family houses.

A good level of evidence is provided setting out housing need issues in the area.

The policy has been revised to require 60% of created dwellings to be 1- or 2-bed dwellings suitable for older people or small households in line with CS (Review) proposed table H4. Justification in text also amended to suit.

13 DELIVERY PLAN LS17 1JL Some good suggestions in this section. The Parish Council already look at planning applications and are in a position to follow up the items on this delivery plan and take things forward for Shadwell.


LS17 8JN Lack of sport/exercise facilities should be addressed as a project. A home ground in the village for Shadwell United with a hall suitable for indoor sports use should be a project for the village. Exercise at all ages pays massive dividends at all ages. True consideration for the health and wellbeing of residents.

Existing list of projects, with addition of footpath aspirations agreed

Project P-1: Children and Young People’s equipped play facilities

Project P-2: Allotments

LS17 9NE Can allotments be developed behind Red Lion? Project P2 will address possible sites. No change.

Project P-3: Tree audit

Project P-4: Seats xx LS17 8JH 13.6.1 “Some possible locations for additional public seating have been identified”: This is private land. No change.



Corner of field on rough grass between right of way and Barnaby Cottages looking north over village.

Project P-5: Small medical centre

IB Planning for xx The Plan sets out a number of desired projects over the life of the Plan period and at P-5 the need for a small medical centre is identified. This desired requirement is noted and supported on the basis of providing additional and beneficial community facilities for the settlement.


Project P-6: Speed reduction

xx LS17 8JH 13.8.1 “Responses to the Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire indicate a continuing concern with highway safety and the speed control measures currently in place.” 13.8.2 “There is also the prospect of increased traffic through the village resulting from future use of the East Leeds Orbital Route (ELOR). There is likely to be a bottleneck at the ELOR/Outer Ring Road (ORR) junction where it goes back to single carriageway, so there will be a temptation for drivers heading to Alwoodley to short-cut through Shadwell. Reducing that increase in volume will be difficult if it is not to inconvenience drivers heading into Shadwell. 13.8.3 Traffic speed control is therefore important, but as it is outside the realm of planning policy, it is included here as a project”.

Introduce a one way system clockwise starting at the junction of Colliers Lane and Main Street to the junction of Main Street and Blind Lane to the Junction of Blind Lane and Colliers Lane and forward to Main Street. This will ease traffic flow through the narrow and bendy sections of Main Street particularly for buses, allow wider pavements improving pedestrian safety and reduce pollution.

The footpath linking Main Street at Minster View with Ash Hill Drive to be altered to allow cars as well as pedestrians through at this point. This should reduce the amount of traffic between this point and Ash Hill Lane along Main Street, help the problems outside the school, reduce wear and tear on the road itself and reduce pollution.

Project P6 will address possible methods of reducing speed and amount of traffic. No change.

LS17 9NE Would there be any traffic diversion through village due to bottlenecks at New Orbital [ELOR]? Project P6 will address possible methods of reducing speed and amount of traffic. No change.


Parking space is desperately needed around the library as quite large carpark was building on around the library. Very dangerous parking on Main St outside the library.

Project P6 will address possible methods of reducing speed and amount of traffic. No change.

Project P-7: Footpaths

In view of suggestions by the Local Access Forum, existing on-going proposals on footpaths in the area have been included as a community action project.

Maps

Map 1 - Boundary



Map 2 – Village Envelope

Carter Jonas Reference is made to the “distant views” on shown on Map 3. A series of arrows are included which are not labelled on the key. These arrows point from various parts of the village and may be generic, but there is no detail of what views they represent or what subject they are aimed at. Furthermore, they seem to exclude the Shadwell Parks area.

Map 5 showing annotated views (with subsequent number changes for succeeding maps), plus a table identifying these views, has been added together with additional references in the text.

Map 3 – Heritage and Local Character

Map amended so views match those in the Conservation Area Appraisals and Map 5

Map 4 – Character Areas and Non-designated Heritage Assets

Map 5-Views Map 5 -Views added

Map 5(now 6) – Local Green Spaces

Map 6 (now 7)–Community Facilities

School and Tennis Club added

Map 7 (now 8)– Connections


Page 35 Map 7 – Connections: The LLAF is pleased to see the Public Footpaths / Bridleways identified, both within the Neighbourhood Plan Area and in adjoining areas. For reference purposes, it would be helpful to mark each right of way with its unique number as used on the Definitive Map – the legal document of public rights of way.

Routes identified on Map 8: Connections

The LLAF also suggests that the description of each route from the Definitive Statement is added as an Appendix. This would then complement the mapping and listing of other assets / facilities. A good example of this approach is in the Bardsey-cum-Rigton Neighbourhood Plan, a copy of the relevant pages of which are attached.

The suggestion has been considered, but reference has been made instead, to the PC Condition survey

The LLAF endorses the following comments made by the Council’s PRoW section in relation to the Proposed Footpath Public Right of Way labelled on the key to Map 7. This is a claimed public path, which is subject to an application for a Definitive Map Modification Order, off Winn Moor Lane. As this route is the subject of an investigation to determine whether or not it is a public right of way it would be preferable if it was to be identified in this manner. Additionally Map 7 shows in linking permissive Bridleway route which follows the northern boundary of the Red Hall estate site. PRoW officers are in discussions regarding the future provision of this route but it would be prudent for it to be referred to as a Permissive Bridleway instead of a proposed PROW.

Routes correctly identified on Map 7: Connections

LCC Map 7 (Connections) in the document indicates where the Public Rights of Way are located and also shows a claimed public path, which is subject to an application for a Definitive Map Modification Order, off Winn

Routes correctly identified on Map 7: Connections



Moor Lane. This is labelled on the key as ‘Proposed Footpath Public Right of Way`. As this route is the subject of an investigation to determine whether or not it is a public right of way it would be preferable if it was to be identified in this manner. Additionally Map 7 shows a linking permissive Bridleway route which follows the northern boundary of the Red Hall estate site. Here, officers are in discussions regarding the future provision of this route but it would be prudent for it to be referred to as a Permissive Bridleway instead of a proposed PROW.

14 Appendix A Non-Designated Heritage Assets

xx LS17 8HH there is a boundary stone dated 1776 which should be recorded on Elmete Lane google map link below https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.8465732,-1.4793754,17.08z

There is no indication of the purpose of the stone (no old boundary nearby): perhaps a gate post? Not included as a NDHA

xx LS17 8JH 14.5.16 South View House, 14.5.17 South View Cottage. 14.5.18 Poplar View, 14.5.19 Clifton Cottages and 14.5.28 Norwood House.

I am concerned at the inconsistency and inaccuracy of descriptions of non-designated heritage assets included. The SNP states that Norwood House has a glazed conservatory that "detracts" from the original style yet South View House, South View Cottage and Clifton House also have glazed conservatories on their south elevations without any comment presumably you approve of such constructions on three of the oldest properties in Shadwell.

Descriptions amended to remove any pejorative statements Descriptions of houses/structures identified in the comment corrected/supplemented as suggested



Inaccurate descriptions may affect planning applications for alterations, the value and selling potential may also be affected and insurance too as property risk and valuation is affected by the age and construction of properties. South View House is not on the Inclosure Award map, both of the original maps do not show it nor is it described in the Inclosure Award. South View Cottage does not have any land to the north, the boundary wall, drive and garden belong to Poplar View. Poplar View comprises three cottages, the roof is concrete tiled not slate and the extension is slate not tile. The comment that tile (slate) doesn't reflect its full traditional style is not understood since the planners gave it planning permission. The outbuildings were demolished.

Clifton House was stone on all elevations prior to alterations a few years ago.

The SNP will become a Statutory Document one day and will form the basis of all future SNPs, errors if not corrected now will be included for ever. Accuracy and fairness is surely needed.

14.5.17 South View Cottage

Shown on the 1838 map

Hobberley Gate Road as the Inclosure Award map is shown as Blacksmith Lane on the 1838 map, Isaac Bradley, blacksmith lived here early 19th century before going to the Red Lion. The road name later changed to Hobberley Lane.

14.5.25 Bay Horse Farmhouse and 1&2, Bay Horse Cottages, Bay Horse Lane.

Shown on Inclosure Award map 1807.

14.5.26 Boundary Stone, Shadwell Lane.

Shown on the Inclosure Award Map and described as “The stone dividing Shadwell and Wigton Roads”.

Original Inclosure Award Map scan included in place of Shadwell and its People copy. References corrected where necessary

Clause 14.5.27 Ridge and Furrow fields, south of Main Street.

The fields are shown on the Inclosure map but not the ridges and furrows. This clause should be amended to be the Ancient Man Made Fields and Hedges as shown on the Inclosure Award Map and described in the Award. The Inclosure Award also requires that hedges will be planted around the inclosures and roads awarded to access the inclosures. Ridge and furrow fields would not have been possible without ancient man made fields. The development of the landscape and the views of it are all of historical significance and recorded.

14.5.27 has been amended. The Ridge and Furrow field marked on the copy Award map has been omitted from the list of NDHA, but the historic landscape of Shadwell as a whole has been added.

Clause14.6 Buildings not included

14.6.1 Certain buildings which meet the criterion on age, have nevertheless been rejected for other reasons: • Ferndale House – extensions and alterations have compromised the integrity of the original appearance • 6 Old Brandon Lane – extensions and alterations have compromised the integrity of the original building • 118 Main St – cement rendering, combined with window alterations, detracts from the traditional character

It is not understood why these three buildings have been publically singled out since other buildings not designated have not been included here. Is there an ulterior motive other than naming and shaming these

14.6, referring to specific excluded buildings has been deleted. 14.4.2 has the additional sentence: “Where a building meets only one criterion, e.g. age but no others, it has not been included.”



buildings which must all have passed the test of time and had planning permission granted for their current state. Surely not listing them is sufficient to show that they haven’t passed the test for inclusion.

16.3.5 LGS 5 St Paul’s Churchyard

• The inclusion of Dan Quarry as a Local Green Space was endorsed at the Policy Intentions public consultation event on 7th April 2018.

The above bullet point should be deleted, but it is correctly included in Dan Quarry clause.

Typo corrected

16.3.8 LGS 8 Ridge and Furrow Field •

“The area is of particular importance to the village as part of its heritage: The ridges and furrows there locate fields that were part of Manor Farm in the medieval period and are the only locally remaining visible manifestations of farming practices of the past which include archival evidence. Shadwell Draft Neighbourhood Plan v3 14-08-18 66 . They were marked on the Shadwell 1807 Enclosure Award Map.”

What does “Shadwell Draft Neighbourhood Plan v3 14-06-18 66” mean ?

Enclosure and Inclosure are both used but for Shadwell it is Inclosure as stated in the Act, Award and Map.

What evidence is there that these fields were part of Manor Farm ? The Inclosure Award Map states that these fields were owned by Samuel Kitchingman. The Inclosure Award map in “Shadwell and its People” is not a true copy of the actual map, is not to the same scale, the writing is different, the west of Shadwell is not included, the key is new and the ridges and furrows are new, etc. The ridges and furrows therefore could be post Inclosure Award.

However if right, how will these features be protected since the land is in private ownership and could be ploughed or levelled at any time ?

Perhaps information about Shadwell contained in the Domesday book is relevant. It states Shadwell had 6 carucates to the geld and 3 ploughs value 40s. One carucate equals 120 acres, suggesting that 720 acres of land was ploughed at Shadwell, a considerable area since Shadwell could only have had a small population. To put it in context 640 acres equals one square mile. Shadwell thus has a remarkable recorded agricultural history and the fields themselves are that physical evidence.

14.5.27 has been amended. The Ridge and Furrow field marked on the copy Award map has been omitted from the list of NDHA, but the historic landscape of Shadwell as a whole has been added.

xx LS17 8JH Email 6.11.18

Since the Inclosure Award map isn't listed in the manuscript or book sources in "Shadwell and its People" I have reasoned that the map included in "Shadwell and its People" must have been copied from one of the manuscripts or books listed and copied from "Shadwell and its People" into the SNP.

As I have already stated the real Inclosure Award map doesn't show the ridge and furrow field patterns. I suggest that it may be helpful to obtain an experts view to resolve if we have medieval features. In the meantime you might like to look at the ridge and furrow fields at Birkby (once part of Shadwell) and compare them to those adjacent Temperance Cottage. Looking at the modern map in the SNP this field

WYAS consulted. Original Inclosure Award Map scan included in place of Shadwell and its People copy. Ridge and Furrow field omitted. References corrected where necessary



(unchanged at the time of Inclosure and since Inclosure) is west and slightly north of the field described as Birkby Hill. These ridge and furrow undulations are easily seen from my house during all daylight hours.

Please also note that Holywell Spring as named on the "SNP Enclosure Award" map is called Haliwell Spring on the real Inclosure Award map.

15 Appendix B Local Character and Design Guidance

LS17 1JT

While finding the overall plan very positive I would raise one concern - when was the last time one smaller home was built and what is the likelihood of one being built in the foreseeable future. I make this comment particularly in view of the comments regarding dissuading the development of large gardens

The same comment is included under Policy HOU1 Housing Mix

The policy aims to rectify that, whilst not being unduly restrictive. No change.


Page 52 last line: Insert (Leeds Footpath 108) after ancient footpath.

Page 53 2nd line: Insert (Leeds Footpath 111) after footpath.

Page 58 3rd bullet – Movement: Insert public after several and insert and a public bridleway after footpaths.

Amended as suggested

In Paragraph 15.5.5 on Page 60 any new green corridors created as part of new development schemes should be considered as new links for public access wherever possible. This would then accord with the Rights of Way Improvement Plan Statements of Action with regard to missing links and developing the public rights of way network. In this regard it may be helpful to identify any aspirational new routes. For example, the Parish Council’s response to the consultation on the preparation of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan requested that a new path be created through the woods adjacent to the north side of the Leeds Outer Ring Road to link footpath No 102 to the Woodhouse Farm footpath (Leeds Footpath 245). The Plan also included a specific Path Improvement Project for Leeds Footpath 102 namely to upgrade this footpath to cycleway or bridleway by Agreement/Order – plus path widening and resurfacing work. Any improvements to the network could be funded through CIL.

Aspirational links added to map 7- Connections and included as a project in Community Actions

16 Appendix C Local Green Spaces

LS17 8JN 16.2.1 the school playing field should be recognised as a Local Green Space. It is not just used by the school. It is used for summer village events and hired out to Shadwell Football Club

[Comment also included under Policy ENV3]

This area was initially outside the “village envelope”, but included so that the VE would coincide with the Green Belt boundary. There may be future changes to the school which would be supported by the community, but which designation as LGS could affect. No change.


Page 64 Paragraph 16.3.5 2nd bullet: Insert (Leeds Footpath 108) after footpath.

Page 65 Paragraph 16.3.7 1st bullet: Replace footpath by public footpath (Leeds Footpath 108).

Amended as suggested

17 Appendix D Local Community Facilities

xx LS17 8HH puzzled at comments the Recreation Centre has made are necessary or even correct about another community facility ie size/capacity/support at the Scout & Guide HQ. The size and capacity are bigger and better and support provided superior. Please correct.

Changed from “largest” to “a large” and comparisons to the Village Hall and Scout Hut removed.