Steering Group Notes

 

 ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No. 107
Monday 12th February 2024 at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.
106.1 Welcome and Apologies
Present: Anne German, Colin Bell, Mary Fleet, Cllr. Diane Chapman, Cllr. Stewart Golton Richard Hughes, Angela Kellett, Richard Walker, Sandra Thompson, Matthew Rodwell, Laura Wilson, Peter Ellis.
Apologies: Roy Garside, Jan Cleverly (LCC) John McVeigh,
107.2 Approval of the Notes of the Previous Meeting.
Notes of the previous meeting were generally agreed to be a true record of proceedings
107.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting
For the most part, matters and actions identified at the previous meeting would be brought to attention as part of the current agenda. However the following items were brought to attention
106.5c Your-Voice Leeds
A TEAMS meeting was convened with Jan Cleverley and her colleague Katie Bell. Peter had finally managed to log on to the YVL site after being given administrator rights and had reviewed the content of the survey and had added a few more specific questions
106.6c Lambert’s Yard
Peter had submitted a letter to David Jones, Planning Team Leader for this area on the state of the building etc. (and copied to Councillors) .No reply had yet been received.
106.6d Holy Trinity Church of England Academy
Peter has submitted a response to the Planning Application and had, as indicated at the previous meeting, concentrated on commenting in respect of the need for a construction statement and impacts on surrounding areas and the existing school.
106.6g Tree Applications
Peter had not yet put together a letter to the Council expressing opposition to the fact that the public are now not able to comment in respect of any applications that involve work to or removal of trees.
106.6h Marsh Street Car Park
Peter had responded to the consultation allied to car park charging by writing to Parking Services directly as opposed to completing the consultation form. This was consistent with the contents of the draft letter referred to in detail at the previous meeting
107.4 Neighbourhood Plan.
a. Locality Application
The application for funds had been approved as previously reported, but unfortunately there had been issues with the “Due Diligence” submission that is a requirement before funds can be made available. This had to be done by the Fund-holder and it took some time to identify that the form that had to be completed could only be accessed by the Fund-holder. The form did not appear on the account that Peter had set up in accordance with requirements, not even appearing in the section of the account site entitled “Information required”. Diane therefore tried to do this as CROWN were the Forum’s identified fund-holder. Despite being able to hold funds for groups where the source of funding was the Council, Groundwork (who are responsible for distributing funds), would not accept this was valid organisation in terms of their standing orders. Eventually a further Fund-holder was identified, but it would still require input from the Forum as completing the information to be returned was outside the scope of a third party .Time for the work to be completed has run out notwithstanding a timeline for acceptance and therefore the grant would have to be rejected.
It would now be necessary to make a further application in early April for all of the work that the Consultant would be doing and hopefully the Fund-holder issue could be sorted out to ensure there were no problems
b. Consultant Appointment and associated matters
Peter would write to Mike Dando again about identifying a quotation to cover the entire commission which would be progressed in the new financial year starting with the bid in April. This should allow the commission to be fully progressed before the end of March 2025
c. Short term Actions
Apart from an aim to meet Mike Dando to discuss the issue indicated in 107.b. consideration was given to what else could be looked at in the meantime. More work on establishing the text for Heritage Assets and Greenspaces to inform the final document and also the putting together a Consultation Statement, as evidence of public consultation were some of the items discussed
d. Footpaths status and inclusion in the NP
Peter had been looking at other Plans to see how the issue had been addressed. As far as could ascertained the identification of footpaths as green corridors appeared to be one route and also the element of improved linkages and access and public health benefits
were aspects that could be included. Tying these issues to constraints on development needed more consideration.
107.5 Public Engagement
a. Facebook and Management of Questions and Results
Colin is continuing to put forward questions on the Forum Facebook page and hoped to collate the results shortly, particularly in relation to Infrastructure and Community Facilities, Town Centre, Retail & Local Economy and Low Carbon Planning.
b. Other Public Engagement Initiatives
Notwithstanding Facebook surveys it is still hoped, as previously reported , that boards allied to “Housing and Design” would be progressed for use at forthcoming events.
c. Your Voice Leeds
It is hoped in the light of the fact that Peter had been able to review the questions contained in this survey (and having identified some additional questions) that it will be made live on the Leeds Your Voice website.
107.6 Haighside Wood
a. Latest Initiatives
Anne German reported that work to plant more primroses and cowslips was planned and also to relocate a tree to replace a specimen that had not thrived over the winter period
107.7Local Issues and Planning Applications.
a. Consultee Access (Planning applications and public comments)
Consultee Access had now finally been approved, though the first attempt to put forward a submission (on the Holy Trinity School application) had not worked resulting in Peter contacting the Planning Dept. It is not entirely clear what the problem is but the Consultee Access Form which should automatically appear when the Forum logs in was not evident. Hopefully this can be sorted out and Peter may speak with Helen Cerroti from LCC Planning Dept. if necessary
b. Lambert’s Yard
Peter did send the letter that he read out at the previous meeting to Planning, but had not received a reply which was very disappointing.
c. Holy Trinity Church of England Academy
A response to the Planning Application had been submitted which particularly referenced construction issues and ensuring a statement was made available to local people. Such a statement was not included in the application documentation. Comments were also made in respect of ventilation systems and the suitability of these in the context of Covid 19
d. Retrospective Application, Commercial Street (Barber’s Shop)
A retrospective application had been submitted which Peter had previously circulated. This represented an improvement on the current shopfront and approximated something closer to the original design (recognising that whatever is done will only be a pastiche in relation to the original facade)
e. Tree applications
As previously indicated Peter had yet to correspond with the planning department on this issue. Reticence to do this derived from the fact that it is so difficult to engender a meaningful response or indeed any response.
f. Marsh St. Car Park
A letter had been sent to Parking Services allied to the issues with proposals to introduce car parking charges to the Marsh St. car park, consistent with the proposed correspondence discussed at the last meeting
g. Castle Gate Planning Consultation
Peter had responded to the Castle Gate consultation that had been put forward by Marshall Construction via Egniol. Roy Garside had put together comments to add to those that Peter had authored and a combined document was produced including both lots of comments. The document was sent on behalf of the Forum and Carlton Village N. Forum. It particularly reflected issues identified within the National Planning Policy Framework, openness in the countryside, boundary treatment and transport impacts.
h. 24B Commercial St: Change of use
It was agreed not to respond to this retrospective application
i. The Oulton Society
The Oulton Society had called a meeting which was attended by the Councillors, but also by Richard Hughes, Colin Bell and Peter. Essentially the key members of the Society indicated they were not in a position to continue and Cllr Golton took on the role of acting chair and it was agreed to look at possibly widening out the remit of the society to include Rothwell and Carlton and retaining its charitable status (and also with the hope of attracting members). Audience members appeared to be very enthusiastic. There will be a further meeting in due course to discuss the way forward that might see an organisation that could take up a mantle of civic issues within the Ward and that also celebrates the heritage of the area ,as the Oulton Society has done more locally in previous times.
107.8 Any Other Business
There was some discussion allied to the increased prevalence of anti-social activity and issues in respect to problems on buses
107.9 Next Meeting
The next mtg. on Monday 11th March at Haigh Road Community Centre at 7.00pm

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No. 106 Monday 15th January 2024 at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.
106.1 Welcome and Apologies
Present: Anne German, Colin Bell, Mary Fleet, Cllr. Diane Chapman, Richard Hughes,
Angela Kellett, Richard Walker, Jan Cleverly (LCC), Peter Ellis.
Apologies: Roy Garside Sandra Thompson, Matthew Rodwell, Laura Wilson John McVeigh,
106.2 Approval of the Notes of the Previous Meeting.
Notes of the previous meeting were generally agreed to be a true record of proceedings
106.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting
For the most part, matters and actions identified at the previous meeting would be brought to attention as part of the current agenda. However Peter drew to attention the following items:
105.5c Your-Voice Leeds
Some progress was being made in terms of the Leeds Your-Voice survey, but further discussion necessary
105.7c Lambert’s Yard
A letter to the Planning Department had been drafted for discussion
105.7i Marsh St Car Park
A letter to LCC Parking Services had been drafted for discussion and to submit before the consultation closing date
106.4Neighbourhood Plan.
a. Locality Application (actions to ratify grant award)
The award had been granted but it was necessary to complete a due diligence form in order for the grant to be made available via the Ground work organisation. This was proving to be difficult as the form for some reason did not appear on the Forum account under required
information. In addition there had been log-in problems associated with password and email address. Hopefully matters would be resolved soon. Funds received have to be held with an appropriate organisation and we are hoping to us CROWN in this respect
b. Consultant Appointment and associated matters
Peter had written to Mike Dando to explain the situation in terms of the grant, but if the aforementioned matters can be resolved it was agreed there will still be time for him to make the necessary progress. Peter had also sent to Mr Dando the work that had been done on the initial chapters within the Plan
c. Review of basis of Commission and Public Scrutiny of Policies Document
The intention of the first phase of work is to distribute a reduced version of the Policy Intention Document discussed in the previous two meetings. The aim would be make this available to all Rothwell households and the basis of the commission would be for the
associated assessment and analysis of results and would also include the use of an on-line survey tool.
106.5 Public Engagement
a. Facebook and Management of Questions and Results
Colin is continuing to put forward questions on the Forum Facebook page and hoped to collate the results shortly. Responses to some elements of the survey had been slightly disappointing, but the membership is still increasing albeit more slowly than earlier in the process
b. Other Public Engagement Initiatives
As mentioned in the last couple of meetings work on display boards been suspended at present pending progress with the planning consultant and also in the light of the work being progressed on Facebook. As previously reported Peter still intended that boards allied
to “Housing and Design” would be progressed for use at events in the Spring, but particularly Summer months
c. Your Voice Leeds
Peter reported that he had spoken to Jan Cleverly and her colleague Katie Bell in a TEAMS previously some time ago and a further meeting had been arranged for the 24th January.
Peter had been made an administrator for the project in the hope that access to the site could be simplified. Once the form is visible, Peter can make any changes necessary and the
survey can finally go live.
106.6 Haighside Wood
a. Latest Initiatives
Following the work to scarify various area, reported last month. Anne indicated that the group had visited the Wood again to sow mixed wildflower seed in a prepared location and Yellow Rattle on the grassland at the entrance to the Wood. Most of this seed requires a
period of cold to germinate and it is hoped that by Spring there will be some sign of success.
106.7 Local Issues and Planning Applications.
a. Consultee Access (Planning applications and public comments)
The issues with email addresses had now been resolved (the Forum email address is now rothwell.nbd.forum@gmail.com). In theory the Forum is now a Consultee on the Leeds Planning website. Not until a response to an application is made can we be sure that the
process is working.
b. Rothwell Council Offices
Following the auction the buyer was unknown, but it appears to be a company called Sandwell? Developments. Artefacts from the Council Chamber have mostly been stored within the Blackburn Hall.
c. Lamberts Yard
In the light of the fact that occupants of the neighbouring residence have declined to procure the property as was previously reported, Peter has now put together a letter to the Planning Department which he read out at the meeting. The general consensus was this was satisfactory and could be sent off. Peter would aim to do this shortly once he had identified the best recipient.
d. Holy Trinity Church Of England Academy
Peter hoped to submit a response to the school application and would probably concentrate on the impact on the surrounding estate and the need for a robust construction statement. The deadline for responses is the 25th January. To date there have still only been 3 public comments submitted.
e. Retrospective Application, Commercial Street (Barber’s Shop)
No further news in respect of the Enforcement Officer’s requirements and whether there has been an appeal by the business
f. Footpaths status and inclusion in the NP
Peter had spoken to Roy Garside about this matter. The main emphasis was to find a way of including footpaths within the Plan in a way that provided some formal protection. Clearly both ratified and permissive paths represented green corridors and they had already been listed as such in respect of the prospective greenspace and environment chapter. However it would be necessary to double check that none of these had been missed, particularly in the light of the stance taken recently by landowners.
g. Tree applications
Peter as was previously reported in the last two meetings, still hoped to write to LCC about the present situation that does not allow public response in relation to trees within Conservation Areas or which are subject to tree preservation orders.
h. Marsh St. Car Park
Peter would be writing to LCC Parking Services as opposed to completing the on line consultation form (which he had used to submit a response from himself), but would do this within the same time constraints. To that end he read out a draft letter that he had prepared which the meeting felt reasonably described the issues and concerns. Peter indicated that he would submit this before the closure date.
There was considerable discussion in respect of the proposal and the impact that it might have on other parking places within the centre of Rothwell and particularly thesupermarket provision.

106.8 Any Other Business
Mention was made of the application on Oulton Lane in respect of replacement of gates considered to be not appropriate within the Conservation Area( and which had not been approved originally)The existing gates are very tall and dominate the street scene. Peter
brought an elevation drawing to the meeting and the new proposals appeared considerably more sensitive and it was agreed not to make a response in respect of the application.
105.9 Next Meeting
The next meeting to be held on Monday 12th February at Haigh Road Community Centre at
7.00pm

 

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No. 105
Monday11th December 2023 at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.
105.1 Welcome and Apologies
Present: Sandra Thompson, Colin Bell Cllr. Diane Chapman, Richard Hughes, Angela Kellett, Laura Wilson, Richard Walker, Matthew Rodwell, Peter Ellis.
Apologies: Anne German, Roy Garside, Mary Fleet, John McVeigh, Jan Cleverly (LCC) Peter also welcomed Laura Wilson to the meeting and tried to provide a short version of the aims of the Forum and where we were in the overall process. Laura had some concerns that despite all the efforts made, the work of the Forum was not very well known about. This resulted in quite a detailed discussion about what had been implemented in this regard and what methods could be employed to improve matters, with a recognition that only so much could be done in terms of public recognition. However it was accepted that if new methods could be adopted to convey a better understanding of the situation, then these should be taken on board.
105.2 Approval of the Notes of the Previous Meeting.
Notes of the previous meeting were generally agreed to be a true record with the exception that Matthew had not been shown as being in attendance. Peter apologised.
105.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting
For the most part, matters and actions identified at the previous meeting would be brought to attention as part of the current agenda. However Peter drew to attention the following items:
104.4b: Peter confirmed that he had made an application to Locality at the end of November in respect of the grant to allow a consultant planner to be appointed and this had been successful.
104.7a: Peter had confirmed with LCC that the Forum be included a consultee on the Council planning website.
105.4Neighbourhood Plan.
a.Locality Application
The application had been submitted and had been successful, but there was still work to do in terms of accepting the offer. Peter was nevertheless relieved that it did not appear that there was a requirement for competition as he had initially feared. (The grant included the costs provided by Mr Dando, printing costs and assistance with delivery as well as the use of Survey Monkey as advised by Mr Dando). Any unspent sums at 31st March have to be returned to Groundworks.
Peter did not expect the offer acceptance with Groundwork to be entirely straightforward based on experience of an earlier grant application for the Forum. However he hoped to make the necessary progress.
b. Consultant Appointment and associated matters
As soon as the grant offer was ratified, Peter would write to Mr Dando to confirm his appointment on the basis of the submission and fee bid that Mr Dando had provided.
c. Initial Basis of Commission and Public Scrutiny of Policies Document
At the previous meeting Peter had presented a reduced version of the Policy Intentions Document (PID) and it had been thought there was a need to reduce this still further. However Mr Dando did not see what had been done as a problem and what had been produced was similar to the content publicly circulated in other projects with which he had been involved. The printing costs did allow for a document with a number pages in a booklet form. The question of distribution, use of Survey Monkey etc. would need further thought.
Peter reiterated the basis of the first phase of the commission, which purely related to the dissemination of the PID and the analysis and reporting of results. This together with the implications for the Pre-submission Neighbourhood Plan.
105.5 Public Engagement
a. Facebook and Management of Questions and Results
Membership of the Group on Facebook had marginally increased, but as reported at the last meeting the amount of comments received had lately not been quite as buoyant as earlier in the process. The process was on-going and Colin would report on outcomes in more detail at the next meeting.
b. Other Public Engagement Initiatives
As reported at the last meeting events involving display boards been suspended at present pending discussion with the planning consultant and also in the light of the work being progressed on Facebook. However Peter still intended that boards allied to housing would be put together in the coming weeks for reasons previously described
c. Your Voice Leeds
The Leeds “Your Voice” questionnaire was still proving to be evasive and Peter freely admitted that the problem was related to his seeming inability to access the site or not reacting fast enough when links had been provided ( they are time limited). He did hope to make some progress on the matter to allow the questionnaire to be published on line.
105.6 Haighside Wood
a.Latest Initiatives
Colin, Anne, Mary, and Rodney spent a dry day in the wood about 2 weeks ago. Good progress was made cutting back the green area on the right side of the path at the front of the wood and clearing scrub. That area is now ready to re-seed when the weather is more suitable. There is also the other piece of grassland on the left of the footpath that requires cutting back and the intent is to also put down seed here (particularly yellow rattle). A further day is being organised to allow these actions to be taken forward.
105.7Local Issues and Planning Applications.
a. Consultee Access (Planning applications and public comments)
Following the previous meeting had contacted the Planning Manager (Helen Cerroti) who deals with Consultee Access and confirmed that the Forum wished to be considered a consultee. Getting the Forum included as a consultee had not been entirely straightforward as to do Peter had to change the details in relation to the Forum to ensure that a Forum email was utilised and not his own email address and also that the address allowed for a degree of anonymity . Any address would be visible to the public and present it was Peter’s home address. The system had not allowed these changes to occur and discussion was on-going.
b. Rothwell Council Offices
The Council Offices had now been the subject of an auction and the buyer of the building was confidential at this point and therefore unknown. Diane had attended the auction on line and the building sold for £364000 which is was agreed was a derisory sum and would not provide much benefit to LCC in terms of their present financial predicament. It should be noted that Peter received a reply to his letter to the Leader of The Council, but that this did not say anything that changed matters, only that Councillor Lewis supported the disposal and commented that any application to make changes to the building would have to go through the planning process.
c. Lamberts Yard
Peter had not made representation on this matter. It appeared that the owners of the adjacent listed building were interested in procuring the building to effectively extend their home. Peter would wait to see how that process went before submitting a letter to the Planning Dept.
d. Aldi delivery management plan
Peter was not intending to respond to this application as it was primarily related to previous planning conditions and to amend the approved delivery management plan to allow the use of reversing bleepers during store opening hours. These were what were described as “white noise bleepers” which would have much less impact on surrounding properties and residents ( post meeting note: in any event the proposals will have to be considered in the context of Aldi’s unsuccessful appeal earlier in the year which also related to delivery times etc.)
e. Holy Trinity Church of England Academy
Peter had not had chance to submit anything in relation to this application. Any submission would concentrate less on the design of the building and more on the impact or potential impact on the surrounding residential estate (indeed the influenced by the issues that appertained in Carlton in relation to the Strawberry Fields Development). He hoped to put a submission together that reiterated the need for the developer to adhere to its construction statement and how it would distribute this information to people living in the locality.
f. Retrospective Application, Commercial Street (Barber’s Shop)
Nothing had been heard as to the enforcement action and whether the business in question would introduce the modifications that had been requested. It was noted however that the signs and photographs that had been pinned to the stone reveals had been removed and this was a welcomed.
g. Tree applications
Peter as was previously reported still hoped to write to LCC about the present situation that does not allow public response in relation to trees within Conservation Areas or which are subject to tree preservation orders.
h. Footpaths
Peter referred to the footpath situation and Matthew said he had not heard anything further, but that Roy appeared to be assembling some response based on a number of frequent users of the footpaths in question. (Post meeting note: The methodology of including footpaths and designation in the Neighbourhood Plan needs to be considered particularly in the context of green sub corridors and connectivity - to be discussed in more detail at the next meeting)
Marsh St. Car Park
It had recently been reported that LCC intended to make Marsh St car park chargeable. There was very little evidence that the decision had been informed by any science except that it was a large car park and therefore might generate suitable income. The impact on
other car parks, businesses etc. seemed essentially to have been ignored. There is to be a consultation which members of the Committee can respond to and Peter intended to write to Parking Services on behalf of the Forum stating the concerns that were in evidence at the meeting ( note https://surveys.leeds.gov.uk/s/l6nz7h and parkingservices@leeds.gov.uk )
105.8 Any Other Business
Peter referred to the City Fibre works in the context of “Public Realm” initiatives that are to be referred to in the Neighbourhood Plan and noted that there was something slightly perverse in the Forum trying to recognise the importance Public Realm and the improvement of spaces to result in enhanced environments and public spaces when at the same time these IT companies seem intent on badly damaging pavements and roads that are after all public assets. He was considering writing to the Council on the subject.
The future plan for Dolphin Manor was also referred to, though not in any great detail except to say that there appear to be proposals that will cause it to be re-purposed. It was noted that the use of Dolphin Manor was used in support for the closure of Home Lea, which illustrates the less than consistent approach of the Council which appears to care less about consistency than its present financial position.
105.9 Next Meeting
The next meeting to be held on Monday 15th January at Haigh Road Community Centre at 7.00pm

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No. 104
Monday 9th November 2023 at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.
104.1 Welcome and Apologies
Present: Sandra Thompson, Colin Bell, Mary Fleet, Richard Hughes, Angela Kellett, Richard Walker, Peter Ellis.
Apologies: Anne German, Roy Garside, Cllr. Diane Chapman John McVeigh, Jan Cleverly (LCC)
104.2 Approval of the Notes of the Previous Meeting.
Notes of the previous meeting were generally agreed to be a true record with the exception of one item.
The minutes which indicated we would “try” to arrange an AGM were agreed to be incorrect, following representation from Sandra, in that we had formally agreed that the AGM would take place on the date of the present meeting.
It was also noted that some of the references were incorrect and were prefaced “102” as opposed to “103”
104.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting
For the most part, matters and actions identified at the previous meeting would be brought to attention as part of the current agenda. However Peter drew to attention the following items:
103.4d: Colin and Peter had met the planning consultant, Mike Dando in respect of the commission allied to taking Plan further
103.5d: The planned for AGM had been cancelled and this would be referred to later in more detail.
103.7b: A letter in respect of Lambert’s Yard had not been submitted for reasons that will be discussed
104.4 Neighbourhood Plan.
a. Consultant Advice and Actions
Colin and Peter had met Mike Dando at Peter’s home on the 10th October and had a constructive discussion.
As background it was explained that Mt Dando appeared to have worked on quite a number of Plans and was presently involved with 4 or 5 at different levels of completeness , but had successfully steered a number plans to completion and ratification via a referendum. This included the document produced for Otley.
The progress made to date was discussed and Mr Dando felt that there was a need to distribute to the community a shortened version of the Policy Intentions Document and to that end Peter had produced a reduced document, but this, though it showed both public concerns and associated policies still equated to about 5 pages (the original document being in the order of 40 pages). The document was circulated for comment. Peter explained it had been influenced by examples that Mr Dando later provided, related to Tadcaster and Pannal, and these were circulated and discussed. The question of how to reduce the present document still further was considered including using links within the document to allow more detail to be seen. The difficulty was that not everyone would be able to do this. Matthew felt the document could be further reduced and said he would have a look at this.
Mr Dando had also provided a prospective programme for the works and a fee bid which was considered.
The first commission relating to the PID consultation to be complete and analysed by March 2024.
The main commission, essentially assumed a completion of the entire initiative by April 2025, with the main work progressing throughout 2024 and the preparation of a pre-submission plan by September 2024 with dates following allied to what was termed “Regulation 14 consultation”.
Peter hoped that Mr Dando would be able to point out information required or necessary to author the Plan and then it would be the job of the Committee to secure that data and Peter would author sections of the Plan as required in a manner led by Mr Dando.
It was hoped that the fee remaining after the first part of the works would allow completion of the exercise .Cllr Golton, who was not in attendance, had referred to the possibility of provision of some underpinning of the budget in the same manner as had been applied at Oulton and Woodlesford, but this was something that could be considered further dependent on how things went
b. Locality Application
It would now be necessary to apply for a grant or the first part of the commission. Peter was still concerned that competition might be required as this had applied some years ago when the Forum had applied for a grant in relation to ecological work (something that he felt had been on reflection slightly ill advised, bearing the needs of the key commission). In any event the process for application was (on the basis of the experience of the ecological bid) rather involved. There was also a lot of provision for monitoring and end of grant reports etc. Any unspent funds had to be returned. Peter said he would look at all of this again and hoped to submit a bid as soon as possible
c. Policy Intentions and Public Scrutiny
This matter had already been discussed 103.4a. In summary however the Forum would need to find a way of reducing the PID document still further. The document would also include links to Survey Monkey questionnaire, something that Mr Dando had recommended and had implemented on other similar exercises. The costs associated with this would need to be included within the bid as would printing, delivery etc.
104.5 Public Engagement
a. Facebook and Management of Questions and Results
Colin was summarising the responses allied to housing and would be proceeding with questions on Facebook allied to the remaining themes on a progressive basis. Membership of the Group on Facebook was still increasing, but the amount of comments received had lately not been quite as buoyant as earlier in the process
b. Other Public Engagement Initiatives
Events involving display boards had as reported at the last meeting been put on hold at the moment pending discussion with the planning consultant and also in the light of the work being progressed on Facebook. However Peter reiterated he hoped that boards allied to housing would be put together in the coming weeks, due particularly, as also mentioned at the last meeting, to its direct relationship with development and the base theme of the Plan.
The Leeds “Your Voice” questionnaire had still not been sorted out, but Peter said this was mainly due to the fact he had not reacted fast enough to links provided etc. that had a deadline. He hoped that he would be able to contact Jan Cleverly with a view to both seeing the content of the Your Voice questionnaire and ratifying it to allow it “to go live”. Peter was at pains to point out that the lack of progress on this was entirely due to him.
c. AGM
The AGM did not take place as it had been pointed out that while we had advertised the fact on Facebook the membership had not been informed in a timely enough manner and this was primarily because Peter had been a bit late sending out the Agenda . This needed to be circulated 2 weeks in advance to match the requirements contained within the
constitution. Sandra had made the meeting known on Facebook in that time-scale and Peter thanked her or doing so.
104.6 Haighside Wood
Latest Initiatives and Species List
No further work had been done on the species list, though it was still hoped some further information related to dates might be forthcoming.
The good news was that TCV had been able to visit the Wood for a 3 day period and had made considerable progress. It had not looked as if this would be possible, so the fact that such input turned out to be available was excellent. It was hoped there would be a visit to the Wood by the Group if weather obliged.
(Not mentioned in the meeting, but Anne had recently pointed out that we have been involved with the Wood for about 5 years!)
104.7 Local Issues and Planning Applications.
a.Consultee Access
Peter said that, as reported previously the Council is not publishing public comments on the Public Access web site and this is something that the Forum does not agree with and has resulted in him previously writing to Chief Planning Officer with our views. However the Forum has been offered “Consultee Access” which means its comments would be published in the same way as other Council consultees, Environment Agency, Yorkshire Water etc.
Peter had initially had concerns about this due to having to put together planning responses without a clear understanding of what residents views were (as these are not published). However following a discussion with Roy Garside and correspondence with Helen Cerroti, a planning business manager at LCC, the merits of the idea became more evident. In addition Colin had suggested that if we needed a clearer understanding of public views, we could use Facebook to capture those thoughts. For the most part it was true that many applications would not require this level of ratification. Where applications were clearly contentious like the Energy Storage Facility at Carlton, then gaining clarity on Public thoughts would be beneficial. It was agreed that we would go forward with this and that Peter would write to Ms. Cerroti to confirm that the Forum would wish to have Consultee Access.
b. Rothwell Council Offices
As reported at the last meeting, things are not going in the right direction and the likelihood now is that the Council Offices will be auctioned in December. Peter had written to the Leader of the Council and was awaiting a reply. It is clear however that despite glaring inconsistences in the process that LCC have adopted, there is nothing that is going to result
in a change to the stance that the Council are adopting. There are many buildings in the Council portfolio that apparently could be disposed of and yet they have chosen to sell what is clearly a most important component of local heritage.
c. Lamberts Yard
Peter had not made representation on this matter. There had been evidence of vandalism that had resulted in the windows and doors of the property being boarded up. However it was now known that the owners of the adjacent listed building had shown some interest in the property and this may change matters. However if nothing is forthcoming, Peter has been in the process preparing a letter to the Planning Dept. to insist that something is done to rectify matters, as the building is in an extremely sorry state, located as it is within the Conservation Area
d. Retrospective application Commercial Street (Barber’s Shop)
Nothing further has been heard about this matter.
e. Tree Applications
Peter still hoped to write to LCC about the present situation that does not allow public response in relation to trees within Conservation Areas or which are subject to tree preservation orders
104.8 Any Other Business
a. Footpaths
Peter said that as far as he was aware Roy Garside was still pursuing the matter of the Footpaths in relations to the statements published by land owners
b. Replacement Rothwell Church School
Peter did go to the school and with Ruth Webster on the 12th October and met the scheme Construction Manager (Director?) and the Architect. In particular the question of construction within such a restricted area was brought to attention and the management of construction traffic on local roads, parking and construction strategies and statements to the public (all things that have caused issues in Carlton allied to the Strawberry Fields Development). Questions allied to the building footprint also featured.
104.9 Next Meeting
The next meeting to be held on Monday 11th December at Haigh Road Community Centre at 7.00pm

 ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No. 103
Monday 9th October 2023 at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.
103.1 Welcome and Apologies
Present: Anne German, Sandra Thompson, Colin Bell, Mary Fleet, Richard Hughes, Angela Kellett, Richard Walker, Ruth Webster, Peter Ellis. Cllr Stewart Golton,
Cllr. Conrad Hart Brooke
Apologies: Roy Garside, Cllr. Diane Chapman John McVeigh, Jan Cleverly (LCC)
103.2 Approval of the Notes of the Previous Meeting.
Notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be a true record.
103.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting
All matters and actions identified at the previous meeting would be brought to attention as part of the current agenda
103.4 Neighbourhood Plan.
a. Further work on authoring the Plan
Peter indicated he had not really added substantially to draft chapters allied to the Plan and thought it best to wait until the meeting with Mr Dando the planning consultant had taken place.
b. Planning Consultants
Peter reported that it was hoped that he and Colin would meet Mike Dando the following day. It was hoped there would also be a presence from Carlton Forum, but this was looking unlikely as the many of the Carlton Committee would be at work.
c. Greenspace Report Additional Spaces.
Peter had put together a document that now showed the greenspaces identified by the Forum and also those spaces that had been identified within the Outer South Section of the Leeds Site Allocation Plan. It was now a question of which spaces to include within the Plan on the basis of National Planning Policy Framework definitions. If all the spaces were to be included this would amount to something in the order of 53. It was still not entirely clear as to whether we would aim to include all the spaces with the likelihood some would not pass
scrutiny or whether a more proactive stance be adopted. Attendees were asked to give the matter further thought and report to the next meeting
d. Consultation Statement
Peter, as at the last meeting, had still not fully collated evidence for the required consultation statement, despite some progress having been made. There had been, as previously reported, 19 display events together with results from questionnaires both town wide and with particular groups. It was felt likely that some of these initiatives might have to be repeated
103.5 Public Engagement
a. Facebook and Management of Questions and Results
Colin informed the meeting about the outcomes allied to housing questions that had been posted on Facebook. There had not been a terrific number of responses, though many people had viewed the questions and there were some “likes”.
b. Display allied to Facebook Results
A display outlining responses from Facebook questioning was taken to the last “Hug in Mug” event.
c. Other Public Engagement Initiatives
Events involving display boards had been put on hold at the moment pending discussion with the planning consultant and also in the light of the work being progressed on Facebook. However Peter was still hopeful that boards allied to housing could be put together in the coming weeks, bearing in mind the importance and dominance of this theme in the context of “new development”, which is much of what the Plan is supposed to relate to.
The Leeds Your Voice questionnaire had still not been sorted out but Peter, Jan Cleverly and Katie Bell, one of Jan’s colleagues, as reported in the last meeting did hold a TEAMS meeting which had not been entirely successful for technical reasons. Peter had however managed to register on the “Your Voice” site and a link was to be sent so that he could view the questionnaire prior to it being “put on line”
d. AGM
Following some discussion it was agreed that we would try to aim for an AGM at the next meeting. The meeting would be posted on Facebook, not less than two weeks prior to the date of the meeting. The venue would be at Haigh Road as it was felt that attendance was unlikely to be huge.
103.6 Haighside Wood
Latest initiatives
Peter had updated a species list that had been produced by Matthew Hawley,so that it now included “Flora as well as Fauna”. Dates of sighting were a little scarce and Colin would see if Mr Hawley had any additional information that he could share. It was hoped that further distribution of wild flower seed would be possible subject to weather conditions and that volunteers (TCV) would be able to give some time to clearing sections of bramble as they had done last year.
b. Strategy Document
No further progress on this
102.7 Local Issues and Planning Applications.
a. Rothwell Council Offices
It was reported that things were not looking very favourable in respect of plans for the Council Offices and Cllr. Golton reported that in respect of disposal of the building, the Council (via the executive board) had deemed the building was excess to requirements in 2020 and therefore were of the view they did not need to do anything else if it was to be the subject of an auction.
There would be a protest with photographs at the Council Offices on the following Sunday
b. Lambert’s Yard
Peter said he had put a letter together allied to Lamberts Yard and hoped to send tis off before the next meeting
c. Retrospective application Commercial Street (Barbers Shop)
Nothing further had been heard about this, though it was clear that thus far nothing had been done to rectify matters and neither was it evident that the users of the building had appealed against the enforcement officer’s decision i.e. to return the shop front to a state that reflected its original configuration
d. 24, Commercial
This item had been wrongly included on the agenda as matters in relation to it had been discussed at the previous meeting and that the criteria relating to issues of access were consistent with LCC accepted issues that applied to 44a Commercial Street.
e. Tree Applications
Peter hoped to write to LCC about the present situation that does not allow public response in relation to trees within Conservation Areas or which are subject to tree preservation orders
102.8 Any Other Business
a. Footpaths
It was again reported that Roy Garside had been in dialogue with the footpath people and was considering further steps to allow more profound recognition of purported footpaths that appear in LCCs own footpath plan, notwithstanding the statements made by landowners.
b. Replacement Rothwell Church School
Ruth Webster brought to attention the fact that details would be presented at the school in relation to the proposed development (12th October) and asked if there could be some Forum attendance. Peter agreed to attend.
102.9 Next Meeting
The next meeting to be held on Monday 13th November at Haigh Road Community Centre at 7.00pm

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No. 102
Monday September 2023 at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.
102.1 Welcome and Apologies
Present: Sandra Thompson, Colin Bell, Mary Fleet, Ian Gale, Richard Hughes, Cllr. Diane Chapman, Jan Cleverly (LCC), Mathew Rodwell, Richard Walker, Ruth Webster,
Deryck Thorpe, Yvonne Thorpe, Peter Ellis.
Apologies: Anne German, Roy Garside, Angela Kellett John McVeigh, Cllr Stewart Golton,
Councillor Conrad Hart Brooke
102.2 Approval of the Notes of the Previous Meeting.
Notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be a true record.
102.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting
All matters and actions identified at the previous meeting would be brought to attention as part of the current agenda
102.4 Neighbourhood Plan.
a. Further work on authoring the Plan
Peter said that following on from work he had done relating to the Greenspace and Heritage chapters, he had now started to put together the Housing and Design chapter. He circulated copies of the progress made so far. He had concentrated on the housing section first and had started to think in more detail about the “Design” portion of the theme. There were comments during this part of the meeting about the thoroughness of the process that informed some of the deductions.
b. Planning Consultants
As had been reported in the last meeting Peter had written to Tomas Johnson in respect of a possible list of approved planning consultants. Since the last meeting a reply had been received from Ian Mackay who indicated that there were now few planning consultants in Leeds continuing with this work, but to his knowledge Mike Dando was still involved with Neighbourhood Plans (someone who Peter had spoken to in February 2020 just before the pandemic). Ian Mackay did not feel that competition would be required in order to source Locality funding , however Peter said on the basis of what had gone before ( e.g. the ecological survey) he still thought this might be an issue and it was something that needed
to be checked. In any event Peter had written to Mike Dando in an effort to confirm that he was still involved with Neighbourhood Planning and with the aim to set up a meeting to discuss matters and establish what level of help could be realised recognising the budget that existed. A reply was awaited.
c. Greenspace Report Additional Spaces.
Peter reiterated what had been said at the last meeting
He had still not circulated the Greenspace Report in its modified form as suggested in the previous meeting. When he managed to do this, the committee would need to consider which of the greenspaces included in the Leeds Site Allocation Plan should be included in the designated greenspace schedule in the Neighbourhood Plan.
d. Consultation Statement
Peter, as at the last meeting, was still not in a position to provide a résumé of the consultation statement, despite some progress having been made. Ian Gale was of the opinion that more needed to be done in terms of consultation. Peter outlined what had been done to date.
102.5 Public Engagement
a. Facebook and Management of Questions and Results
Colin indicated that the questions allied to the Housing theme were currently being included on the Facebook page and that he hoped he would be in a position to bring a summary of outcomes to the next meeting. The Forum Facebook group was steadily growing with in excess of 120 members.
b. Other Public Engagement Initiatives
New display boards outlining some of the comments put together by Colin, received as a result of the Facebook exercise, were taken to the “Hug in a Mug” but did not attract significant attention.
The Autumn Fair in Rothwell was held in September ,but there did not initially appear to be space for the display in the foyer at the Methodist Church (the church was hosting the horticultural show) and it was decided that perhaps it would be better not to include a display on this occasion.
The Leeds Voice questionnaire had still not been sorted out but Peter and Jan and Katie Bell , one of Jan’s colleagues, would be having a Teams meeting at the end of the week to discuss and hopefully resolve matters so that the questionnaire on Your Voice Leeds could be made public
102.6 Haighside Wood
Latest initiatives
Nothing had been done at the Wood since the Yellow Rattle seed collection, but it was hoped to clear the area close to the junction of paths within the Wood and to distribute some woodland mixture wild flower seeds.
Unfortunately there had been recent evidence of fly tipping (including a council bin and a considerable pile of gravel). Cllr Chapman would be speaking Cllr Hart Brooke and to the relevant department at LCC .She was also pursing the procurement of a fly tipping sign to be mounted at the entrance to the footpath and visible to anyone approaching the Wood from Low Shops Lane
b. Strategy Document
Peter had not made any further progress in respect of this initiative, but hoped time would allow him to do this soon
102.7 Local Issues and Planning Applications.
a. Rothwell Council Offices
Cllr Chapman outlined the present position in terms of plan for the Council Offices. She spoke about the interested parties, the Temperance Band, MHA, and the Manse Surgery (who at the very least were looking for admin space). She outlined that she had made an application to the Community Ownership Fund. The initiative qualified for that fund, but there were some questions allied to ownership that had needed to be clarified.
Things were still proving difficult in terms support from the Deputy Leader of the Council (Cllr. Couper) who is also the Executive Member with responsibility for resources. Cllr. Chapman said she was hoping to meet Cllr. Couper sometime before the next meeting to discuss matters.
b. Lambert’s Yard
Peter said he had put a letter together allied to Lamberts Yard and that he hoped to get this sent off soon.
c. Retrospective application Commercial Street (Barbers Shop)
As reported in previous meetings the application had been rejected and the Enforcement Officer had asked for restoration of the original facia and provided a detailed schedule of requirements. The applicant has the option to appeal. Nothing further has been reported
d. Oulton Lane: Gates
Peter had been in the process of putting together a response, but the application has now been rejected on the basis of the dominance of the gates (in what is after all a Conservation Area)
e. 24, Commercial Street
It was thought there was little to be gained in submitting a response in respect of this retrospective application. It was clear that the same type of issues applied as to the application that was made and accepted at 44a Commercial Street, particularly in respect of access.
f. Letter to LCC re: non publication of comments allied to Planning Applications:
Peter said he had a reply to his letter to the Chief Planning Officer, which he would circulate. This change to the publication of public comments is to be reviewed (6 months from its June introduction)
g. Tree Applications
Another change to planning arrangements is that the Planning Dept. will now not accept notifications of proposed works to trees in Conservation Areas or to trees with a tree preservation order. Peter was of the opinion that this was not acceptable, bearing in mind the few resources that LCC seem to have in respect tree officers. It seemed like a recipe for unsatisfactory judgements made without scrutiny
h. Barn Conversion at Glebe Farm
This appeared to relate to yet another submission allied to the removal of a farm building with the introduction of a new residence (something similar to a previous application). Peter said that at this stage he was not proposing to send in any comments
102.8 Any Other Business
a. Footpaths
Notices have appeared in various areas allied to footpaths. It appears that Landowners can deposit a statement and map under section 31(6) of the Highways Act 1980 indicating any rights of way over their land and then make a statutory declaration to the effect that no additional rights of way exist. There are about 6 of these applications in Rothwell including three in the vicinity of the fields off Wood Lane, peripheral to Haighside Wood. Essentially any purported footpaths shown in green on Leeds definitive footpath plan have been omitted from the landowners’ statements and plans. Peter knew that Roy Garside was looking further into this matter for the Forum
b. Certificate of Proposed lawful development Unit 3 Commercial Street
The application that was less than clear in terms of location in Commercial Street was referred to again. As reported at the last meeting Richard Hughes had asked in B&M as to whether there was any knowledge of this bearing in mind the stated postcode and reference to “Unit 3”, but there was none. It has now unfortunately transpired that B&M is to close in October and it was agreed that the company had not been very fair in not communicating with its staff in a timely manner given the aforementioned application.
101.10 Next Meeting
The next meeting to be held on Monday 9th October at Haigh Road Community Centre at 7.00pm

 

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No. 100 Monday 10th July 2023 at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.

 

100.1 Welcome and Apologies

Present: Anne German, Sandra Thompson, Colin Bell, Angela Kellett

Richard Walker, Richard Hughes, Cllr Stewart Golton, Councillor Conrad Hart Brooke,Cath Moran, Peter Ellis.

 

Apologies: Roy Garside, Mary Fleet, Cllr. Diane Chapman, Jan Cleverly, John McVeigh,

 

100.2 Approval of the Notes of the Previous Meeting.

Notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be a true record. However some of the numbering was incorrect.

 

100.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting

 

99.7a Peter had submitted a response in relation to the latest application

 

99.7c Peter had not submitted a response to 44a Commercial St as intended, but was taking the matter further (more detail later in the meeting)

 

99.7f The application response allied to trees at Lay Garth was still outstanding

 

99.7g Peter had not managed to put in a response to the 5G Mast at Wood Lane as suggested at the last meeting. The application had however been rejected.

 

Additional item

Cath Moran from Lay Garth attended the meeting primarily to discuss the state of grass and hedges local to her property. The matter was not strictly the domain of the Neighbourhood Forum, but was nevertheless discussed with Councillors attending the meeting and with the hope that the matter could be resolved.

 

100.4Neighbourhood Plan.

a. Progress on “Greenspace” Chapter and General work on the Plan

Peter circulated a copy of the Greenspace and Environment Chapter which while not complete gave an indication of what was possible. Peter relayed some comments that had been made by Tomas Johnson at a meeting in Carlton on the subject of utilising consultants to put together the Plan document. Peter said he was hoping to do draft chapters for the document that could then be handed over to a planning consultant to tailor into a more acceptable form from a planning perspective (i.e. “to knock it into shape”). A discussion ensued about how much work needs to be done and Colin was of the view that perhaps three chapters could be nominally completed and then this could be discussed with a consultant. Peter felt it was probably important that one of those chapters was “Housing “.

He therefore intended to write chapters on Greenspace, Heritage and Housing in the first instance. He would also investigate the question of appointment of consultants and would ask Tomas Johnson for an approved list. There was further discussion about whether it was necessary to do so much work before speaking to a consultant. Peter said his concern wasthat there would not be enough grant to cover a consultant doing all the work, but if initial drafts had been done that might make things more feasible, but admitted that an initial feasibility meeting with a consultant planner might clarify matters on this point.

 

b. Greenspace Report Additional Spaces.

There was discussion allied to which of the greenspaces already identified in the Site Allocation Plan should be included in the Neighbourhood Plan over and above the “new” spaces already identified. It was clear from the O and W Plan that some spaces had not been successful in terms of inclusion and these were still mentioned in the document as being important, but couldn’t be designated. It was clear that a robust case needed to be made for each space that was included which demonstrated compatibility with the National Planning Policy Framework requirements. Peter would review the spaces and asked others

to do likewise, so it could be discussed at the next meeting. He would try to circulate his thoughts and send out a prospective list and then once agreed update the Greenspace Report accordingly.

 

c. Consultation Statement

Peter said he was collating the papers that he had in respect of display events,

questionnaires etc. and would hope to bring something to the next meeting on this. Others wanted to help, but Peter needed to get the paperwork sorted out in to some manageable form first.

 

100.5 Public Engagement

a. Facebook and Management of Questions and Results

Colin had just about completed the Greenspace questions on Facebook and it was felt the exercise was proving to be very effective though membership numbers of the Facebook Group seemed to have slightly stalled. Nevertheless there were some very useful answers being put forward that will certainly help with the writing of the document. Colin intends to produce summaries of the latest responses received.

 

b. Other Public Engagement Initiatives

Following on from the Summer Carnival there would also be an Autumn Fair, so there would be perhaps be a further opportunity for a display of one of the themes. Peter was hoping to get something together relating to housing, but this was a big job and it would be a lot of work to put together. Further “Hug in a Mug” events would also provide more opportunities to illustrate the themes of the Plan. Display boards were taken to the July

event, but response had not been huge with little opportunity for discussion. Nevertheless it was agreed there was a need to make a constant statement and that it was good PR. Peter also hoped that the issue allied to the Leeds Voice questionnaire could be sorted out, but admitted the lack of progress was down to him and that he needed to have a conversation with Jan Cleverly and colleagues. Time just didn’t seem to avail itself!

 

100.6 Haighside Wood

Latest initiatives Nothing further to report

 

b. Strategy Document No further progress made

100.7 Local Issues and Planning Applications.

a. Rothwell Council Offices

There was little further to report except that there appeared to be more interest from more potential users as was evident following a visit to the building on the 6th July. It was pleasing to see that the building had not, as far as could be determined, deteriorated further.

 

b. Beauty Parlour, Haigh Road

As agreed at the last meeting Peter submitted a response to the latest application and made mention of the height of the fence in the context of the adjacent pavement and the fact that the fence was not consistent with planning regulations.

 

c. 44a Commercial Street

Peter had not unfortunately managed to submit a response to this planning application in time, however in the light of the fact access officer report appeared to have been ignored it was felt that any response from the Forum was unlikely to have had any impact. However Peter had contacted Tomas Johnson on the matter as he had for some reason been copied into the Access Officer’s report (it transpired that he currently leading on the topic of Accessibility in the Local Plan Update and is copied in to the Access Officers reports). He provided an extremely comprehensive reply as to why the application had gained permission. One of the reasons was that from a practical perspective, the level difference between the building and the public pavement is 3 relatively large (some 3 steps). The

proximity of the doorway threshold to the pavement is also very close. Combined therefore the level difference could not be bridged via a suitable ramp without it having to extend into the public highway. To place an access ramp within the public pavement would represent a highway safety concern in its own right and could not be supported. Apparently a proposal at No. 24 Commercial Street (21/07910/FU) was refused for this very reason and is currently at appeal. The practical difficulties are so acute that further consideration of the impact on the historical environment is limited but would also have presented difficulties.

 

d. Lambert’s Yard

Peter indicated intended to write to the Council in respect of the State of this building. He had thought to do this when the grant of planning permission is of 3 years standing (this is in November 2023). The meeting felt that some sort of correspondence sooner than this should be considered.

 

e. Retrospective application Commercial Street (Barbers Shop)

It was understood this application had been rejected. However as it was a retrospective application it was not entirely clear as to how the matter might be resolved as the original materials we're obviously not available.

 

f. Trees at Lay Garth

Peter had not yet spent significant time viewing this application. (Post meeting note: the application relates to a Sycamore tree at the rear of 3, Lay Garth Court, adjacent to allotments)

 

g. 5G Mast at Wood Lane

Peter had not managed to provide a response in respect of this application, prior to the application being judged. However the application was refused. A further application had recently been posted on the public access website for a 5G mast at Park Lane. This proposed mast to be located immediately outside St. Mary's Catholic Church. As such it was felt that this application suffered from all the same issues as previous applications and perhaps more so given its position in front of the Church. Peter brought drawings of the proposals to the meeting for discussion and it was agreed submit the response objecting to the application.

 

100.8 Leeds City Centre West: The Innovation Arc supplementary Planning DocumentPre-Adoption Consultation

Peter would try to put together a response to the somewhat lengthy complex document. The last date for comments was the 26th July

.

100.9 Any Other Business

No further matters were discussed (or at least not recorded)

 

100.10 Next Meeting

The next meeting to be held on Monday 14th August at Haigh Road Community Centre at 7.00pm

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No. 100Monday 10thJuly2023at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.100.1 Welcome and ApologiesPresent:Anne German,Sandra Thompson, Colin Bell,Angela KellettRichard Walker,Richard Hughes, Cllr Stewart Golton, Councillor Conrad Hart Brooke, Cath Moran,Peter Ellis.Apologies:Roy Garside,Mary Fleet,Cllr. Diane Chapman, Jan Cleverly, John McVeigh,100.2 Approval of the Notes of the Previous Meeting.Notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be a true record. However some of the numbering was incorrect. 100.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting99.7a Peter had submitted a response in relation to the latest application99.7c Peter had not submitted a response to 44a Commercial St as intended, but was taking the matter further(more detail later in the meeting)99.7f The application response allied to trees at Lay Garth was still outstanding99.7gPeter had not managed to put in a response to the 5G Mast at Wood Lane as suggested at the last meeting. The application had however been rejected.Additional itemCath Moran from Lay Garth attended the meeting primarily to discuss the state of grass and hedgeslocal to her property. The matter was not strictly the domain of the Neighbourhood Forum, but was nevertheless discussed with Councillors attending the meetingandwith the hope that the matter could be resolved100.4Neighbourhood Plan.a.Progress on “Greenspace”Chapterand General work on the PlanPeter circulated a copy of the Greenspace and Environment Chapter which while not complete gave an indication of what was possible. Peter relayed some comments that had been made by Tomas Johnson at a meeting in Carlton on the subject of utilising consultants

to put together the Plan document. Peter said he was hoping to do draft chapters for the document that could then be handed over to a planning consultant to tailor into a more acceptable form from a planning perspective(i.e. “to knock it into shape”). A discussion ensued about how much work needsto be done and Colin was of the view that perhaps three chapters could be nominally completed and then this could be discussed with a consultant. Peter felt it was probably important that one of those chapters was “Housing “. He therefore intended to write chapters on Greenspace, Heritage and Housing in the first instance. He would also investigate the question of appointment of consultants and would ask Tomas Johnson for an approvedlist.There was further discussion about whether it was necessary to do so much work before speaking to a consultant. Peter said his concern was that there would not be enough grant to cover a consultant doing all the work, but if initial drafts had been done that might make things more feasible, but admitted that an initial feasibility meeting with a consultant planner might clarify matters on this point.b.Greenspace ReportAdditional Spaces.There was discussion allied to which of the greenspaces already identified in the Site Allocation Plan should be included in the Neighbourhood Plan over and above the “new” spaces already identified. It was clear from the O and W Plan that some spaces had not been successful in terms of inclusion and these were still mentioned in the document as being important, but couldn’t be designated. It was clear that a robust case needed to be made for each space that was included which demonstrated compatibility with the National Planning Policy Framework requirements. Peter would review the spaces and asked others to do likewise, so it could be discussed at the next meeting. He would try to circulate his thoughts andsend out a prospective list and then once agreedupdate the Greenspace Report accordingly.c. Consultation StatementPeter said he was collating the papers that he had in respect of display events, questionnaires etc. and would hope to bring something to the next meeting on this. Others wanted to help, but Peter needed to get the paperwork sorted out in to some manageable form first.100.5Public Engagement a.Facebookand Management of Questions and ResultsColin had just about completed the Greenspace questions on Facebook and it was felt the exercise was proving to beveryeffective though membership numbers of the Facebook Group seemed to have slightly stalled. Nevertheless there were some very useful answers being put forward that will certainly help with the writing of the document. Colin intends to produce summaries of thelatestresponses received.

b.Other Public Engagement InitiativesFollowing on from the Summer Carnival there would also be an Autumn Fair, so there would be perhaps be a further opportunity for a display of one of the themes. Peter was hoping to get something together relating to housing, but this was a big job and it would be a lot of work to put together. Further “Hug in a Mug” events would also provide more opportunities to illustrate the themes of the Plan .Display boards were taken to the July event, but response had not been huge with little opportunity for discussion. Nevertheless it was agreed there was a need to make a constant statement and that it was good PR.Peter also hoped that the issue allied to the Leeds Voice questionnaire could be sorted out , but admitted the lack of progress was down to him and that he needed to have a conversation with Jan Cleverly and colleagues. Time just didn’t seem to avail itself!100.6 Haighside WoodLatest initiativesNothing further to reportb. Strategy DocumentNo further progress made100.7Local Issues and Planning Applications.a. Rothwell Council OfficesThere was little further to report except that thereappeared to be more interest from more potential usersas was evident following a visit to the building on the6thJuly. It was pleasing to see that the building had not, as far as could be determined, deteriorated further.b. Beauty Parlour, Haigh RoadAs agreed at the last meeting Peter submitted a response to the latest application and made mention of the height of the fence in the context of the adjacent pavement and the fact that the fence was not consistent with planning regulations.c. 44a Commercial StreetPeter had not unfortunately managed to submit a response to this planning applicationin time,however in the light of the fact access officer report appeared to have been ignored it was felt that any response from the Forum was unlikelyto have had any impact.However Peter had contacted Tomas Johnson on the matter as he had for some reason been copied into the Access Officer’s report(it transpired that he currently leading on the topic of Accessibility in the Local Plan Updateand is copied in to the Access Officers reports). He provided an extremely comprehensive reply as to why the applicationhadgained permission.One of the reasonswas that from a practical perspective, the level difference between the building and the public pavement is 3 relatively large (some 3 steps). The

proximity of the doorway threshold to the pavement is also very close. Combined therefore the level difference could not be bridged via a suitable ramp without it having to extend into the public highway. To place an access ramp within the public pavement would represent a highway safety concern in its own right and could notbe supported. Apparently a proposal at No. 24 Commercial Street (21/07910/FU) was refused for this very reason and is currently at appeal. The practical difficulties are so acute that further consideration of the impact on the historical environment is limited but would also have presented difficulties.d.Lambert’s YardPeter indicated intended to write to the Council in respect of the State of this building. He had thought to do this when the grant of planning permissionis of 3 years standing (this is in November 2023). The meeting felt that some sort of correspondence sooner than this should be considered.e. Retrospective application Commercial Street (Barbers Shop)It was understood this application had been rejected. However as it was a retrospective application it was not entirely clear as to how the matter might be resolved as the original materials we're obviously not available.f. Trees at Lay GarthPeter had not yet spent significant timeviewingthis application. (Postmeeting note:the application relates to a Sycamore tree at the rear of 3, LayGarthCourt, adjacent to allotments)g. 5G Mast at Wood LanePeterhadnot managed to provide a response in respect of this application,prior to the application being judged. However the applicationwasrefused.Afurtherapplicationhadrecently been posted on the public access website for a 5G mast at Park Lane. This proposed mast to be located immediately outside St.Mary's Catholic Church. As such it was felt that this application suffered from all the same issuesasprevious applicationsand perhaps more so given its positionin front of the Church. Peter brought drawingsof the proposals to the meeting for discussionand it was agreed submitthe response objectingtotheapplication.100.8 Leeds City Centre West: The Innovation Arc supplementary Planning Document Pre-Adoption ConsultationPeter would try toputtogether a responseto the somewhat lengthy complex document. The last date for comments was the 26thJuly

.100.9 Any Other BusinessNo further matters were discussed(or at least not recorded)100.10Next MeetingThe next meeting to be held on Monday 14thAugustat Haigh Road Community Centre at7.00pm

 

 

 

 ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No. 99
Monday 12th June 2023 at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.
99.1 Welcome and Apologies
Present: Anne German, Mary Fleet, Sandra Thompson, Colin Bell,
Jan Cleverly (LCC) Richard Walker, Peter Ellis.
Apologies: Roy Garside, Cllr. Diane Chapman, Richard Hughes
99.2 Approval of the Notes of the Previous Meeting.
Notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be a true record. However some of the numbering was incorrect.
99.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting
98.5c Other Public Engagement Initiatives
The Forum did have a presence at the May Day event in conjunction with Carlton Village Neighbourhood Forum
98.7 Haighside Wood
The working group did meet in June at Haighside Wood
98.8b 44a Commercial Street
Peter had yet to submit a response
98.4 Neighbourhood Plan.
a. Progress on “Greenspace” Chapter and General work on the Plan
Peter had made only very modest progress on the Plan text , but since the last meeting had managed to procure a copy of MS Publisher and, having used it, had found that it offered great advantages in terms of configuring text and pictures and should considerably simplify putting together the document layout.
b. Greenspace Report etc.
Peter was working now to include some areas already contained within the Site Allocation Plan that were defined as Greenspace and would try to identify those which might usefully be accounted for where it was perceived greater risk existed He hoped that the list could be agreed at the next meeting and he would prepare a list.
99.5 Public Engagement
a. Facebook and Management of Questions and Results
Colin Bell had introduced some initial and basic questions on Facebook to test out responses. These questions asked people to say what their favourite thing about Rothwell was and then their least favourite. In addition they were asked what could be done in Rothwell that would make it a better place. There had been a reasonable response with on average about 56 people seeing the questions and a number of comments had been submitted. Colin circulated a resume of the outcomes of this exercise.
Peter also circulated a document with questions related to each theme in the plan that were collated from questions used at display board events and also by scrutinising some other neighbourhood plans to arrive at some bespoke questions that would underpin the Rothwell Plan text. These could be progressively used on the Facebook page.
b. Housing and Design
Having more recently completed display boards for Community Facilities and Infrastructure, Peter had taken account of previous comments and decided that the next display would be probably the most onerous theme of “Housing and Design”. This would take some time to put together.
c. Other Public Engagement Initiatives
A display had been taken to the “Our Beautiful World” event (10th June) at Rothwell Methodist Church. This had only been moderately successful as footfall could have been better. In keeping with the event “Greenspace and Environment” was the theme on show. A display was also taken to the “Hug in a Mug” events on the 6th May and 3rd June
Peter had apologised to Jan for being unable to access the draft questionnaire on to be used on the Leeds “Your Voice “website and Jan said she would see what could be done to allow access. Peter had tried on a number of occasions to log on to the site and had changed login password a number of times but for some reason had been unable to do so.
It was hoped this could be sorted out as the questionnaire had the potential to provide valuable information.
99.6 Haighside Wood
Anne German reported that on the 2nd June, Haighside Wood Community Volunteers met to complete clearing encroaching scrub along one of the woodland paths. There was a short survey done to identify butterflies, insects and flowers. Flowers included Common Fumitory, Bush Vetch and Yellow Rattle and the latter is really thriving and is visibly reducing the vigour of surrounding grasses. There was evidence of Blackcap and Warblers and three species of butterfly were recorded.
b. Strategy Document
Yet again Peter had not found time to make further progress on this initiative but hopefully can improve matters
99.7 Local Issues and Planning Applications.
a. Rothwell Council Offices
Nothing further to report over and above the comments made at the last meeting. It is likely that FORCE will be meeting soon to review the situation to see if anything else can be done to inspire some action from LCC asset management and the key people at the Council who have the ability to condone such action.
b. Beauty Parlour, Haigh Road
Peter had put together a response in respect of the revised application that had been submitted which this time made specific reference to the boundary fence and therefore the Forum response could validly refer to inappropriate height of the fence and its impact on the street scene .Peter read out the response and it was agree this could be put forward
c. 44a Commercial Street
Peter hoped to submit a response that highlighted the issues with access and the entirely unsatisfactory Design and Access Statement that was included within the application documentation. Notwithstanding these issues there was evidence that the applicant was at least being more sensitive in respect of heritage issues and the Conservation Area
d. Lambert’s Yard
It was still hoped that the Forum might submit a general comment about the unsatisfactory state of the house at Lambert’s Yard that was the subject of an approved planning application which should be revoked if nothing is done by the autumn.
e. Retrospective application Commercial Street (Barbers Shop)
Peter had not looked at the Public Access site in respect of this application and it had been current last time he looked. However he had since understood that the application had been refused. It is less than clear what the next steps might be
f. Trees at Lay Garth
An application allied to trees at Lay Garth was a source of concern and Peter would look at this submission more closely
g. 5G Mast at Wood Lane
A 5G mast is proposed to be located at the junction of Wood Lane and Castle Lodge Avenue. It was agreed that a response to the application would be submitted and would refer to LCC response to previous applications that had been rejected on the basis of incongruity in a domestic setting
99.9 Any other business.
Earlier in the meeting the Consultation Statement had been referred to and the fact that Peter had a lot of information that needed collating and sorting out. The meeting offered to provide assistance with this task.
Also earlier in the meeting Jan Cleverly said she would see if any information was available about the proposals for the Home Lea site that has now been cleared.
99.10 Next Meeting
The next meeting to be held on Monday 10th July at Haigh Road Community Centre at 7.00pm.

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No. 98
Monday 3rd April 2023 at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.
97.1 Welcome and Apologies Present: Anne German, Cllr. Conrad Hart-Brookes, Cllr. Stuart Golton, James Driver, Tracy Reece, Richard Hughes, Colin Bell, Mary Fleet, Angela Kellett, Peter Ellis.
Apologies: Roy Garside, Sandra Thompson, Cllr. Diane Chapman,
Jan Cleverly, Richard Walker,
The meeting welcomed James Driver the Labour Candidate for the Rothwell Ward at the forthcoming local elections. Peter briefly explained some of the issues related to the work of the Forum and thanked James for attending.
97.2 Approval of the Notes of the Previous Meeting.
Notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be a true record except that Richard Hughes had been shown in attendance
98.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting
97.5a Facebook
Colin and Peter had met Cllr Hart-Brookes at the Blackburn Hall “Hug in a Mug” coffee morning and set up the Facebook page for the Forum. Thanks to Conrad for his assistance. Peter had put together a bit of text etc. to use as an introduction and the logo as a picture
97.5c Other Public Engagement Facilities
Peter indicated that he had not been very proactive in responding to the review of the questionnaire for Leeds “Your Voice” due to a misunderstanding on his part.
97.6 Local Plan Update Consultation
Peter had responded to the consultation and in the light of the detail required had submitted a joint response from both the Rothwell and Carlton Forums.
98.4 Neighbourhood Plan.
a. Progress on “Greenspace” chapter
Peter confirmed that he had again only made very slight progress on the greenspace chapter, but was hoping to procure a copy of MS Publisher to try and speed things up.
b. Greenspace Report
As reported in the last meeting Peter had sent the Greenspace Report to Tomas Johnson for comment, together with a number of associated questions and a response had been received.
c. Correspondence with Tomas Johnson
As indicated above a response to the greenspace submission was received. It appeared that greenspace as identified within the Leeds Site Allocation Plan is protected subject to a number of provisos and that designation of greenspace within the Neighbourhood Plan does confer additional protection.
The most telling aspect of this was the following statement:
“Designating local green space is a tool to provide special protection against development for green areas of particular important to your community. Once designated, local green spaces will be subject to the same strong development restrictions as green belt, and new development is ruled out other than in very special circumstances.” With this in mind the list of SAP identified greenspaces needs to be reviewed, but broadly a significant number of these it was thought by the meeting need to be introduced into a revised greenspace report.
98.5 Public Engagement
a. Facebook
The Facebook page for the Forum had been set up and it was hoped that this would be a means of communicating with greater numbers of local people and in so doing provide more meaningful statistical information to underpin comments with the Neighbourhood Plan. First questions on a progressive basis would relate to greenspace and then follow the order of the work done in respect of displays i.e. “Heritage” and then “Community Facilities and Infrastructure”. There was then a detailed discussion about the merits and management of the Facebook page with views from the Councillors and James Driver
b. Community Facilities and Infrastructure display and questionnaires
Display boards had been taken to the “Hug in a Mug” event at the Blackburn Hall the previous Saturday, but interest was rather limited though there were a few discussions. Again the theme had been Community Facilities and Infrastructure. The presence at the display boards was rather interrupted by efforts to sort out the Facebook page etc.
c. Other Public Engagement Initiatives
The forthcoming events in Rothwell where it was hoped to have a Forum presence and display boards were May Day at the Pastures where the Community Facilities boards would be used in a joint effort with Carlton Village Forum and also the “Our Beautiful World” event at Rothwell Methodist Church on the 10th June. It was unlikely that there would be any presence at the “Hug in a Mug” at the Blackburn Hall as this would be Coronation Day
Peter was very conscious that he needed to contact Jan Cleverly in respect of the questionnaire that she had been organising and which also had the potential to provide very valuable information from an increased audience.
98.6 Local Plan Update Consultation
Peter had completed and submitted the consultation before the last date of the 24th March and it had as usual proved to be quite a task. It was essentially a scoping questionnaire and included subjects such as Spatial Strategy, Housing, Economic Development, Transport and Community, Minerals and Waste. Multi-choice questions followed by explanations and views for each topic for about 18 different areas were necessary and therefore it proved a time consuming exercise.
In addition and, as alluded to in the previous meeting, there was a “call for sites” in respect of a forthcoming allocation plan. Peter had put forward the old garden centre site as a suitable site for retail purposes as had been agreed at the last meeting( on the basis that this was a sensible use for the area of land and had the potential to better service the northern zone of Rothwell where there was scant provision).
98.7 Haighside Wood
For the benefit of James, a bit of background in respect of the Wood and the involvement of the Forum was described.
The working group had not been to the Wood since the last meeting, but it was hoped something would be organised soon and there was an intent to install an owl box and also create a bug hotel. Primroses and Cowslips had been very bright and were really beginning to appear in bulk and a few Bluebells had been in flower.
b. Strategy Document
Once again Peter had not found time to make further progress on this initiative, but hoped to spend some time improving the zonal drawing etc. and detailing future initiatives
98.8 Local Issues and Planning Applications.
a. Rothwell Council Offices
Nothing further to report over and above the comments made at the last meeting
b. 44a Commercial Street
There was a "Change of Use” application on the Public Access site for the conversion of the former Deans Butchers premises (and the site of a previous and withdrawn mini supermarket application) for a restaurant and bar. Issues allied to treatment of the exterior and access were the main potential concerns and Peter would try to put together some sort of limited response.
c. Lambert’s Yard
Peter just informed the meeting that the planning permission allied to the conversion of the property would be time expired later this year if the work to convert it did not proceed. The building which is in the conservation area is very dishevelled having had much of its render removed (done prior to planning permission being received) and is a blight on the street scene with its crumbling brickwork and broken windows. Peter was considering writing to the Council in respect of the building
d. Retrospective application Commercial Street (Barbers Shop)
The application is still current.
97.9 Any other business.
No items of additional business were recorded by the writer, but if this is incorrect it can be rectified at the next meeting. Consideration would need to be given as to when the next meeting would take place as the first two Monday’s of May were bank holidays and the Carlton Forum meeting would be on the third Monday (Post Meeting Note**: It was decided to cancel the May meeting as a prospective alternative date proved to be unworkable)
97.10 Next Meeting
This will now** be held on Monday 12th June at Haigh Road Community Centre at 7.00pm.

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No. 96
Monday 13th February 2022 at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.
95.1 Welcome and Apologies
Present: Sandra Thompson, Angela Kellett, Colin Bell, Mary Fleet, Richard Hughes
Cllr. Conrad Hart-Brookes, Richard Walker, Peter Ellis
Apologies: Roy Garside, Anne German, Cllr. Diane Chapman, Jan Cleverly, John McGrory
Cllr. Stewart Golton
96.2 Approval of the Notes of the Previous Meeting.
Notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be a true record.
96.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting
Most actions arising from the previous meeting would be accounted for within the agenda items for the present meeting. However some of the previously indicated planning applications have been determined
95.7b Commercial Street Post Office application for a Hairdressing Salon
This application has been approved (RNF submitted an objection)
95.7f Beauty Salon on Haigh Road
The Forum had submitted a response to the application since the last meeting but it has recently been approved.
95.7g Other application just within the Neighbourhood Area (38 Ouzlewell Green)
This application has been withdrawn
96.4 Neighbourhood Plan.
a. Progress on greenspace chapter
Peter indicated that he had regrettably made only modest progress on the Greenspace chapter but would try to improve matters. Unfortunately he had found that a number of issues had reduced his ability to make the necessary headway.
b. Information made available by Tomas Johnson
Tomas Johnson from LCC had attended the last meeting in December (no meeting was held in January) and had promised he would send through a number of documents and Peter had circulated these to attendees. These included the Holbeck Consultation Statement, a template for a Rothwell Consultation Statement, a Greenspace Report template and information published by Locality (Neighbourhood Planning Roadmap). In addition he sent some information about using social media and a document entitled Neighbourhood Planning Timeline
The Holbeck Consultation Statement was extremely comprehensive and Peter indicated that the detail contained in questions that had resulted in recorded responses was more focussed than questions used by RNF. A discussion then took place in respect as to how the Forum might perhaps drill down into more detail. There was no suggestion that the questions used at display events thus far were not useful or informative, but a further tier of questions relating to specific measures and actual provision in Rothwell was needed. So far displays had been put together for Heritage and Environment/ Greenspace and these still existed due to the number of boards we have been able to procure ( with Richard’s help) and future displays could collect more detailed responses going forward. With new displays a more focussed approach to questions could be adopted.
The Locality information and the “Roadmap” was not new and had been brought to previous meetings , but nevertheless it seemed sensible to further review the document in the context of our position together with the Timeline information.
c. Greenspace Report
While part of the information that Tomas Johnson had provided, this subject was discussed as a separate agenda item.
Peter reported that he had filled in the Greenspace report template complete with notes relating to state and use of the identified spaces (derived from the National Planning Policy Framework). These are intended to constitute proof as to why an identified area deserves to be a formally designated Greenspace. A discussion about the merits of various spaces ensued with a feeling that more prominence could be given to spaces on the basis of recreation potential. Peter had used Google Earth and polylines to illustrate the extent of the areas included and intended to send a draft to Tomas Johnson when he had refined the information further.
d. Community Facilities and Infrastructure
The next display had been agreed to relate to the previously separate themes of Community Facilities and Infrastructure (as shown within the Policy Intentions Document) and this would be looked at in terms of the Neighbourhood Plan after draft versions of chapters for Greenspace /Environment and Heritage had been authored.
96.5 Public Engagement
a. Progress on Next Themes for Display and Questionnaires
Peter indicated that he was intending to have completed the display boards for “Community and Infrastructure” for the March “Hug in a Mug” coffee morning at the Blackburn Hall (4th March) having not managed to put anything together for the February event. He also hoped to put together some more detailed questions as suggested in 96.4b
b. Other Public Engagement Initiatives
An involved discussion took place into the rights and wrongs of Facebook. It was agreed that the Forum needed a Facebook page and particularly in order that questions could rolled out on a progressive basis. The displays had worked reasonably well, but the number of people spoken to had been inevitably modest and Facebook it was agreed did offer the potential for more substantial responses and statistically relevant outcomes. The idea of “drip feeding” questions also seemed a good way of obtaining continuous input and output. Cllr. Hart-Brooke felt he could assist in this process and Peter also agreed to look at this.
96.6Haighside Wood
a.Latest Initiatives
There had not been any workdays since the last meeting in December, but it was hoped that it would be possible later in February or early March to plant further primroses and cowslips that Anne had obtained. Anne had also ordered 4 more trees from the Arium that would be delivered on a day when the weather was reasonable.
b.Strategy Document
Consistent with previous recent meetings Peter had to admit that he had made no further progress on this task, but would try to devote some time to building on what he had already put together
96.7 Local Issues and Planning Applications.
a. Retrospective application for a new shop front in Commercial Street
This application was still current and as recorded previously the Forum had submitted a response
Nothing further to report and as reflected in the previous meeting minutes, it will be a question of monitoring the site and any initiatives /application that might result following the sale of the site
b. Other application just within the Neighbourhood Area (38 Ouzlewell Green)
This application has recently been withdrawn. The Forum had not submitted a response prior to this having occurred.
c.Bell Hill Development: missed opportunity
A significant warehouse development was progressing at Bell Hill and the planning application was not known about. Developments outside the Neighbourhood boundary are not routinely made available to the Forum, but occasionally it is useful to send a response where there is local impact etc. This was just a reminder that it is useful to check neighbouring areas occasionally on Public Access to see if there are any pertinent applications that might affect Rothwell, be that knock on parking impact or increased traffic etc.
96.8 Any other business.
Peter highlighted the need to respond to the Local Plan update consultation for which the closing date is 24th March. The consultation relates to the scope of the 2022-2040 Local Plan. There is also a request for land owners to put forward land to be considered for approval to be ultimately included in the next Site Allocation Plan which of course is part of the Local Plan
96.9 Next Meeting
This will be held on Monday the 13th March at Haigh Road Community Centre at 7.00pm.

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No. 95
Monday 12th December 2022 at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.
95.1 Welcome and Apologies
Present: Sandra Thompson, Angela Kellett, Colin Bell, Mary Fleet, Richard Hughes
Cllr. Conrad Hart-Brookes, Tomas Johnson LCC, Richard Walker, Peter Ellis
Apologies: Roy Garside, Anne German, Cllr. Diane Chapman, Jan Cleverly,
Cllr. Stewart Golton, Ian Mackay LCC
95.2 Approval of the Notes of the Previous Meeting.
Notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be a true record.
95.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting
Most actions arising from the previous meeting would be subsumed within the other agenda items for the present meeting.
94.4d
It was noted that Tomas Johnson from LCC Neighbourhood Planning Team was present and reflected the hope that this would be so in the last meeting. (Ian Mackay had intended to be present following a discussion with Peter, but this had not been possible due to illness).
95.4 Neighbourhood Plan.
This part of the meeting was intended to be dedicated to comments and advice from Ian Mackay and Tomas Johnson. In Ian’s absence, Tomas said he would run through some of our concerns etc.
a. Review of Policy Intentions Document
It was recognised that some changes had been made to the Policy Intentions Document (PID) as a result of previous comments made available by Abbie Miladinovic. Peter asked for more clarity on the uses of the PID and at what stage it was overtaken by the embryonic Plan. Tomas indicated that the PID is effectively retained throughout the whole process and is updated to reflect changes made as the Plan proceeds and in effect becomes a précis of the Plan. Peter indicated that this certainly made things more understandable. The need to ensure that revisions to the document were formally recorded was referred to.
b. Greenspace and Environment Chapter: present status and discussion
Peter indicated that he did receive some correspondence from Kwame Steadman in respect of the basis for inclusion of greenspaces within the Plan and this showed and complemented the differing approaches. Peter had been concerned that some plans, and Oulton &Woodlesford being a good example, showed not only proposed greenspaces within a Neighbourhood Area, but also those that were already designated within the Site Allocation Plan. It became clear following discussion that if it was felt that more needed to be done in respect of an already allocated space then this could be further brought to attention within the Plan. An example of this is possibly Rothwell Country Park. Tomas agreed to provide a schedule of designated greenspaces for Rothwell Neighbourhood Area. On reflection this was perhaps not absolutely necessary as the designated spaces had already been highlighted in detail in a number of the engagement displays (though in the light of the above, perhaps not in the way they should have been). Tomas said he would provide a template for a greenspace report which would allow images to be imported etc. This would allow a formal schedule of candidates for inclusion to be identified in more detail and in a manner that reflected the NPPF criteria.
c. Importance of a Consultation Statement and its derivation
Tomas indicated this was a very important component of the Neighbourhood Plan process and configured well would properly describe the methodology and substance of public engagement. Peter indicated that considerable public engagement activity had taken place , but that he did recognise that perhaps record keeping needed to be improved and would now aim to better collate the initiatives that had occurred and those going forward. Tomas said he would forward a template for a consultation statement.
d. Public engagement advice
To a degree this topic overlapped with item c above. It was clear that improvement would need to be made in respect of recording feedback and more formally collating this in order that Consultation Statement was suitably detailed an reflected the very real efforts being made to try and assess the views of the local community.
Tomas said that he would also aim to provide more information from “Locality” particularly in respect of Neighbourhood Planning timelines.
The question of the use of social media was also discussed and the need to have a Facebook account which Peter indicated that he had perhaps over zealously tried to avoid. At present it was indicated that the Forum had “Blogspot” account where information was made available, but that this did have its limitations. Peter said he would look at configuring something in relation to Facebook with the intent of increasing levels of engagement.
Peter indicated that Jan Cleverley had been working with others at LCC to put together a smart questionnaire (and this could be quite timely in the light of putting together a presence on Facebook)
At this point Tomas left the meeting and the Forum thanked him for what was a very useful and helpful contribution
95.5 Public Engagement
a. Peter had not made as much progress on the next set of display boards which were as previously recorded going to relate to Community Facilities and Infrastructure.
It was hoped that the smart questionnaire would be available soon and this would form another strand of public engagement going forward. This would also involve Leeds Voice
95.6 Haighside Wood.
a. Latest initiatives.
Peter reported that TCV had made a further (second) visit to the Wood in November and had concentrated their resources at the southern part of the footpath and Colin had taken the lead to highlight the aspect that needed to be progressed. This has proved extremely useful and the progress made could in no way have been replicated by ourselves. Anne had written to TCV to thank them for their efforts.
Colin, Rod and Peter had done some more work on the grass area at the LHS of the entrance to the Wood and sown further Yellow Rattle seed in order to reduce the vigour of the grass to ultimately allow greater success with wild flowers in that location.
b. Strategy Document.
Peter reported yet again that he unfortunately not been able to make much more progress on this but would hope to do so shortly.
95.7 Local Issues and Planning Applications.
a. Retrospective application for a new shop front in Commercial Street
Peter had submitted a response on behalf of the Forum and had also suggested that occupiers/owners should be reminded that they are in a Conservation Area and that modifications to shopfronts etc. require permission. Colin and Sandra had also sent an individual responses
b. Commercial Street Post Office application for a Hairdressing Salon.
Peter confirmed he had submitted a response to the Planning Department in respect of this application. He had tried to include comments from others and particularly from Richard (H). Peter said that originally he had not included an argument about the number of shops being used for the same purpose , but had discovered that the applicant should really provide some evidence of the need for a further business of this type in the light of so many other similar provisions. He had also brought up the question of providing design
statements which should really be provided in relation to properties within a Conservation Area. Colin had also sent in an individual response
c. Land behind “Rothwell Trailers” on the A61
Nothing further to report on this. It seems to be a question of keeping a watching brief on developments. The key aspect is that the greenbelt land will be returned to its original state following the works and that there is no veiled attempt to change designation by default
d. Former “Bone Factory “site (land adjacent to it)
Nothing further to report and as reflected in the previous meeting minutes, it will be a question of monitoring the site and any initiatives /application that might result following the sale of the site
e. Glebe Farm house application
Peter had not submitted a response in respect of this application. It was worth noting that the proposed house on the footprint of an existing rhubarb shed appeared to respect the height constraints etc. that the former and approved commercial warehouse application had ignored. Peter would review the present application in the light of this
22/07333/FU | Demolition of existing barn and greenhouse; construction of new dwelling | Glebe Farm Wakefield Road Rothwell Leeds LS26 0SA
f. Beauty Salon on Haigh Road
Peter had not yet responded to this application, but hoped to do so at some point. While this might not be specifically something that the applicant could be taken to task for, there was no doubt that the boundary fence had a very significant effect on the local street scene and the loss of hedging was extremely regrettable
22/07435/FU | Change of Use of the ground floor from Shop to Beauty Salon | Hazelgrove Haigh Road Rothwell Leeds LS26 0NQ
g. Other application just within the Neighbourhood Area (38 Ouzlewell Green)
Peter has not responded to this application as yet and there is a considerable amount of information to look at. As reported in the previous meeting land designation and tree-scape are items for further consideration in the context of the proposals
22/07415/FU | Demolition of existing buildings; Creation of three new dwellings with associated landscaping and outbuildings | 38 Ouzlewell Green Lofthouse WF3 3QR (leeds.gov.uk)
95.8 Any other business.
Peter indicated that he would aim to respond to the Leeds Local Plan Update consultation which was due to close on the 19th December.
He also wished the meeting attendees a Happy Christmas and all the best for the New Year.
94.9 Next Meeting
This will be held on Monday the 13th February at Haigh Road Community Centre at 7.00pm.
(No January Meeting). Angela said she would look at future bookings

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No 92
Monday 12th September 2022 at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre
Marking the passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth
Before starting the meeting Peter said a few words in respect of Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth and the meeting recognised with sadness her lifetime of dedication and
commitment to the people of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth
92.1 Welcome and Apologies
Present: Anne German, Peter Ellis, Mary Fleet, Colin Bell, Sandra Thompson, Cllr Stewart
Golton, Angela Kellett, Jan Cleverly, Cllr Diane Chapman.
Apologies: Roy Garside, Richard Hughes, Richard Walker, John McVeigh, John McGrory.
92.2 Approval of the notes of the Previous Meeting.
Notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be a true record.
92.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting
As usual the majority of issues would be accounted for within the items for discussion in
the meeting, particularly as these appertained to the items for discussion in 92.4
92.4 Neighbourhood Plan
a. Review and progress allied to identified information requirements
At the last meeting certain information requirements had been identified allied to the pilot
theme chapter. The majority of greenspaces identified were now complete with a
photograph and an evidential description supporting the inclusion of that particular site
within the pre-submission document. There were still some omissions, for example in
relation to Public Realm. Mary had provided some words relating to “Rothwell in Bloom”.
Anne had provided quite a bit of information allied to particular greenspaces and Colin had
looked at sports facilities.
(Post meeting note: Others have provided information since the date of this meeting)
b. Further work on the pilot theme.
More work is needed on views and footpaths. In addition more perhaps needs to be done
in respect of local green corridors, though these have been identified at present as part of
the greenspace schedule, e.g. some of the green linkages around Haighside Wood.
c. Progress on authoring pilot theme for Pre-submission document.
Peter had started to author the “Greenspace and Environment” section of the pre-submission document (he brought this to the meeting) and was working with a view to completing a draft of this entire section. He had still some concerns over the definition of greenspaces given some of the spaces included in the Oulton and Woodlesford document which seemed to already be contained in the Site Allocation Plan (plus some issues with the Holbeck greenspace assessment) and confirmed he had written to Ian Mackay in respect of this matter. Any response to this would hopefully be discussed at the next meeting.
92.5 Public engagement.
Peter apologised for not attending the September “Hug in the Mug” event as he had initially intended. Jan Cleverly outlined what could be done to allow questionnaires to be more effective and the possibility of on line smart surveys. In thanking her for this valuable assistance, Peter agreed to send her some of the questions that have been put together for “Greenspace and Environment” and “Heritage” themes.
92.6 Haighside Wood.
a. Latest Initiatives
Anne said that we hadn’t managed to get on to the wood to start cutting the vegetation back. Now autumn is here we will start to look at booking a work day in October.
b. Strategy Document
Peter reported that he had not made any further progress on the Haighside Wood strategy document.
.
92.7 Local Issues and Planning Applications.
a. Possible proposals for Commercial Street.
Cllr Golton discussed this and reported he had a meeting with LCC asking if a proposed plan could be drawn up showing how Commercial Street would look if it became pedestrianised. Stewart passed around a few copies of the proposed concept plan to the members. Peter said he had already sent a few of his own observations to Cllr. Chapman which revolved around the oldest part of Commercial Street and the use of murals and the type of shelter suggested, while applauding other aspects of the suggested proposals.
b. Garden Centre Site.
Roy and Peter had been to see Ian and Sue, the owners of the Garden Centre site, to discuss the possibility of the land being made available for commercial purposes, a discussion that then explored the possibility of retail use (given the fact that the owners said that the site had a status that allowed it to be used for retail purposes). The meeting had been promoted due to the very derelict state of the site and concern for the plight of the owners.
The land in question was the subject of an outline application for a housing development that proceeded no further due to the Aireborough Appeal and the removal of 37 greenbelt sites form the SAP. Despite the Garden Centre part of the Wood Lane site being “brownfield”, the overall site designated in the SAP was removed from the document.
The owners are making investigations into the potential uses.
c. Extensions to Cockburn Haigh Road Academy.
Peter apologetically reported that he had unfortunately not submitted a comments as it transpired that the application had already been approved (Decision Notice dated 27th July)
d. Lingwell Gate.
This is a planning application for a commercial site adjacent to Thorpe Lane and there are real concerns allied to traffic bearing in mid the number units proposed and car parking capacity. In addition there are issues allied to land designation and the constraints that relate to a saved policy in the UDP. The site is made up of land identified in the SAP, Land designated within the UDP and what is termed “White Land” which is land without designation (A bit like the land to the South of the Haighside Estate)
Peter asked the members if he should send out and objection to this as it could have a real impact on Rothwell and the A61. Everyone agreed. No submissions had however been made recently, but it did look still possible to make comments. Thus far in excess of 130 objections have been made to the proposals.
e. A61/A639 consultation.
Peter reported that he had made a submission on the 13th August (Deadline for comments was the 14th August). Comments related to the A61 as far as Lofthouse and A639 as far as Oulton, plus comments in respect of the proposed transport hub at Marsh Street (though there were very scant details provided within the consultation documentation)
F. Houses on Wood Lane.
This related to an application for two houses at the rear of
g. Land behind Rothwell Trailers on Wakefield Road.
92.8 Any Other Business.
After signalling the meeting was finished, Peter did say that we should put on record our thanks to Richard Hughes for making available further display boards for the use of the Forum. These will be very useful given the number of themes that need to be displayed and will result in less dismantling of previous displays
92.9 Next Meeting
This will be held on Monday 10th October at Haigh Road Community Centre at 7.00pm.

 

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No 91
Monday 8th August 2022 at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre
91.1 Welcome and Apologies
Present: Anne German, Mary Fleet, Colin Bell, John McGrory, Sandra Thompson, Cllr Stewart Golton, Richard Hughes, Peter Ellis
Apologies Roy Garside, Cllr. Diane Chapman, Richard Walker, John McVeigh, Jan Cleverly
91.2 Approval of the notes of the Previous Meeting.
Notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be a true record.
91.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting
There were few actions related to the previous meeting with exception of work related to the pre-submission document and these are referred to in 91.4.
90.4b A workshop meeting was convened on the 25th July to discuss the content for the section within the pre-submission document that related to greenspace and environment which it was hoped would act as a pilot for the rest of the document. Peter had presented the various aspects of the likely content and with varying degrees of success had utilised a projector and screen to show the strengths and weaknesses of other Neighbourhood Plans, focussing particularly on the Holbeck and Oulton and Woodlesford documents
91.4 Neighbourhood Plan
a.Learning from Holbeck and topics identified from both Holbeck and O and W
Peter had produced a resume of aspects allied to what could be included within the greenspace and environment section of the pre-submission document building on discussions that occurred at the 25th July workshop. This included aspects relating to layout and running order. Subjects such as sports facilities, public realm, green corridors and Rothwell in Bloom were referred to and the need to identify information allied to these aspects. There was also discussion relating to policies and the fact that the number relating to this theme for Rothwell significantly exceeded those for Holbeck leading to the conclusion there might be a need to rationalise the Rothwell policies and to avoid any repetition.
b. Information required in respect of the “pilot” theme
There was a need to try and distribute the workload to collate certain information for inclusion and that end Peter had identified certain tasks for the group to look at in the context of greenspace and environment and these included:
 Assessing the mental and physical health benefits
 Green corridors and their value and benefits and identification of linkages that need to be identified or strengthened
 Sports facilities and activities in Rothwell
 Public Realm and what that might mean in the context of Rothwell as it presently exists
 Rothwell in Bloom and its aims and intent
In addition to this a schedule of the proposed greenspaces was discussed with a view to identifying information in support of the inclusion of some of these spaces.
Action: It was agreed that members of the committee would aim to try to report on the various aspects for inclusion listed above including collating information specific to the proposed green spaces
Further discussion took place on improvement to greenspaces and associated projects, public rights of way and improvements (something again that might generate projects)
Public Realm and where this might appear elsewhere in the document (e.g. Town Centre, Retail and Local Economy) was referred to as was tree protection and the maintaining of open views
c. Questionnaires
It had been noted particularly in the Holbeck document that reference was made to public satisfaction allied to certain aspects of individual themes. Peter said this was a bit of a “wake-up” call and that it had prompted him to introduce questionnaires allied to individual themes and the display board presentations. On the 6th August “Hug in a Mug” event he had started doing this and now for example could say that 81% of people questioned thought the quality of public footpaths needed to be improved and more than that were in favour of more locally protected greenspaces. Fortunately only two themes have been displayed thus far, even though some opportunities have been missed at
previous events. Going forward the intent was to use questionnaires with all future display board initiatives
91.5 Haighside Wood.
a. Latest Initiatives
Anne German reported there hadn’t been any work carried in the summer to the heat. The group hope to get together for the first work day in September, weather permitting.
b. Strategy Document
Peter reported that he had unfortunately not made any further progress on the Haighside Wood strategy document due to other priorities.
91.6 Public Engagement
a. review of last event ( Blackburn Hall 6/8)
The Greenspace and Environment display boards had been used again, but this time also in conjunction with a targeted questionnaire to help inform some the text in the pre-submission document related to this theme. The hope was that with the rest of the themes, resulting display board presentations would include associated questionnaires.
91.7 Local Issues and Planning Applications.
a. Extensions to Cockburn Haigh Road Academy Haigh Road
Peter had not submitted any response to this application and the matter was again discussed and it was agreed if possible that something needed to be said about the materials of construction which were not very sensitive in the context of the existing structure (particularly relevant as the building is one of those identified as a possible non- designated heritage asset)
b. Lingwell Gate
Peter had also not submitted a response to this application and it was possible that responses would now not be accepted even though the application remained “current”. There were already a large number of objections (in excess of 100)
c. A61/A639 consultation
The end date for response was in about a week (14th August) and Peter was intending to submit a response and if anyone had any thoughts to please let him know
91.8 Any Other Business.
No matters were identified
91.9 Next Meeting
This will be held on Monday 12th September at Haigh Road Community Centre at 7.00pm

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No 88
Monday 9th May 2022 at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre
88.1 Welcome and Apologies
Present: Cllr. Conrad Hart-Brooke, Mary Fleet, Colin Bell, Natalie Preston, Richard Preston, Richard Walker, John McGrory, Peter Ellis
Apologies Roy Garside, Cllr. Diane Chapman, Cllr Stewart Golton,
Anne German, John McVeigh, Jan Cleverley, Angela Kellett
88.2 Approval of the notes of the Previous Meeting.
Notes of the previous meeting are accepted to be a true record.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Before the meeting got underway Peter welcomed new members Natalie and Richard and briefly explained a bit about the background of the Forum, the previous surveys, public engagement and the establishment of objectives and the present state of play with reference to the Policy Intention Documents.
Action PE to send PID to Natalie and Richard
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
88.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting
Peter indicated that the majority of the items would be discussed in the meeting.
87.7a Transport Plan (Supplementary Planning Document- Pre adoption consultation): Peter had submitted a response to the consultation on behalf of the Forum prior to the 14th April end date
87.7b Statement of Community Involvement (consultation): Peter had submitted the consultation response on behalf of the Forum prior to the 19th April end date
88.4 Draft Policy Intentions Document.
a. Further consideration of LCC comments and actions
Some of the comments received both from Abbie Miladinovic and Ian Mackay more recently were referred to. Peter indicated that the intent was to try and invite Ian Mackay to the next Forum meeting to discuss the Policy Intentions plan and the drafting of the “pre-sub plan” i.e. the draft Neighbourhood Plan.
There was reference to the need to formalise Non-Heritage Asset details and to more accurately capture details of proposed local greenspaces. These have been identified in the Policy Document, but will need to be more accurately annotated (something mentioned in a discussion that Peter had with Ian Mackay in a recent on line meeting)
Action: Peter to invite Ian Mackay to the next meeting
88.5 Haighside Wood.
a. Latest Initiatives
In Anne’s absence Peter said there was nothing to report. The Yellow Rattle seed previously reported to have germinated in the grass area at the entrance to the wood appeared to be starting to flower and should hopefully have an impact on the area allowing greater diversity of flower species that might be possible as a result (Yellow Rattle being semi parasitic, feeding on the nutrients of nearby grasses resulting in reduced vigour).
b. Strategy Document
Peter had not made much progress on the Strategy Document due to so many other competing demands in recent weeks but hoped to make progress particularly with the zonal plan.
Action: Peter to make further progress on the Strategy Document
88.6 Communications and Membership.
a. Engagement sessions: Non-Designated Heritage Assets
Following on from the April “Hug in a Mug” at the Blackburn Hall, the Heritage display boards were again taken to the May event with Colin and Peter in attendance. In addition Peter had a stall at Methodist Chapel as part of the May Day Fair. It was here that Peter met Natalie and Richard. The next set of display boards would hopefully be “Greenspace and Environment” and would require considerable effort to put together and Peter said he would not be able to complete this in time for the June “Hug in a Mug”
Action: Peter to configure Greenspace and Environment Display Boards
b. Methodist Church “This Beautiful World” event (18th &19th) June.
Peter hoped to complete the Greenspace and Environment display boards for this event which is also to include a gardening talk, a sustainable fashion show and various stalls. It was hoped then to take this display to the July “Hug in a Mug”
c. Membership initiative.
Peter having extracted all the likely interested parties form the original Forum membership list would aim to put a letter together to describe the present status of the Forum with the intent of trying to attract further interest.
Action: Contact with former members to be made (PE)
88.7 Local Issues and Planning Applications.
a. Commercial St Shop: Retrospective Application
The views expressed in the last meeting were felt to be ok.
.
b. Trees at Market Cross Surgery
This still needs to be looked at further and is still current on the Public Access System
c. Tree Work at Park House, Park Lane
No further action
d. Tree removal at 105, Commercial St, Ebor House
It was felt that the proposals were probably satisfactory
88.8 Any Other Business.
Reference was made to the pedestrianisation plan for Commercial Street and in particular proposals related to bus stop provision, car charging etc. This matter was being looked at by LCC and proposals might soon be available
88.9 Next Meeting
This will be held on Monday 13th June at Haigh Road Community Centre at 7.00pm

 

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No 87
Monday 11th April 2022 at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre
87.1 Welcome.
Present: Cllr. Conrad Hart-Brooke, Cllr. Stewart Golton, Anne German, Colin Bell, Peter Ellis
Apologies Roy Garside, Cllr. Diane Chapman, John McGrory John McVeigh, Richard Walker, Jan Cleverley
87.2 Approval of the notes of the Previous Meeting.
Notes of the previous meeting are accepted to be a true record.
87.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting
85.4 Draft Intentions Document
Peter had contacted Ian Mackay in respect of a Zoom meeting
85.6c Membership Initiative
A list of previous members to contact is still being finally collated
87.4 Draft Policy Intentions Document.
a. LCC Comments from Ian Mackay (Neighbourhood Planning Team)
Confirmation had been received from Ian Mackay as to aspects that needed to be considered in respects of the PID and this had been circulated to the Committee .He also indicated that he was now being assisted by Kwame Steadman ( who is presumably replacing Abbie Miladinovic). The advice included in the letter though not discussed in detail at the meeting was to:
1. Work together to finish off the PID, this could be a useful focus of our next meeting, with Kwame. This would be about filling-in the gaps essentially
2. Agree the draft PID with the forum. This should ideally be as a forum meeting.
3. Presenting the PID summary to the community informally, effectively to get their endorsement for the draft plan that the Forum will be preparing. It is also a useful opportunity engage more generally and to set out next steps, perhaps with a draft timetable to Referendum.
4. Prep of a Strategic Environmental Assessment & Habitats Regulation Assessment (unlike most other LPA’s, we do this on behalf of groups – attached is the doc for Oulton and Woodlesford for info). This needs to be completed prior to Pre-sub consultation and it forms part of the docs that are consulted on. We will start to prepare this fairly soon)
5. Drafting the pre-sub plan – pick up any issues raised during the informal consultation with the community and start to draft the supporting text and the policies themselves. This is another area where we can assist. The PID will give to confidence to start drafting the plan, knowing that the policies are on the right track and the evidence to support them is available. The PID will provide an excellent structure to draft the plan.
b. Next Steps
Ian Mackay had also said previously in his conversation with Peter that things like properly defining the proposed Local Greenspaces for the Plan needed to be done more accurately. Efforts to engage informally with the community have been ongoing and this needs to continue. Peter hoped that it would be possible to get Ian Mackay and/or Kwame Steadman to a meeting to review the items identified in 87.4a. Time precluded a detailed discussion in respect of these items and how they may be addressed, but it was hoped they would be discussed more fully at the next meeting.
87.5 Haighside Wood.
a. Latest Initiatives
Anne German outlined the latest work that had been taking place at Haighside Wood on the 5th April the group had planted a large range of plug plants having earlier planted about 300 Bluebells. There had been a very good show of primroses and it is hoped that these will spread still further. There was also evidence that the Yellow Rattle seed in the grass land at the entrance to the Wood had begun to germinate strongly
b. Strategy Document
Peter confirmed that he was presently starting work on the idea of putting together a strategy document to detail the initiatives that had been progressed
in the Wood and to describe the aims going forward including the annotated zonal plan as referred to in the previous meeting
87.6 Communications and Membership.
a. Engagement sessions: Non-Designated Heritage Assets
A further session utilising display boards had taken place at the Blackburn Hall on the 2nd April with Colin and Peter in attendance. The theme depicted was Rothwell Heritage and possible buildings that could be locally listed. There was not great interest shown, but some discussion with a few of the people at the “Hug in a Mug” coffee morning. There was a chance to show the display to the Lord Mayor who was attending the event and for photographs to be taken which are very important from an evidential perspective. Peter had produced forms to go with the display to allow people to indicate buildings or structures that they thought were worthy of local protection. On the day this did not prove to be particularly successful. It was hoped that the boards could be used at the May Fair and Peter was working to try to include a split display that also showed Heritage in Carlton for the Village Forum
b. Methodist Church “This Beautiful World” event (18th &19th) June.
This event is still going ahead. Peter remembered that Cllr Golton had said that such an event might be a start of trying to use horticulture and interest in gardening to work in more positive ways and Cllr Golton pointed towards positive youth activity, greater appreciation of local environments, litter picking and involvement of Groundwork etc. Peter reiterated that he hoped to have display boards devoted to Greenspace and the Environment at the event including schematics of proposed local greenspaces that could be included in the Neighbourhood Plan.
c. Membership initiative.
Peter had extracted a schedule of former members of the Forum that numbered about 213 names, but with perhaps about 140 email addresses. The next steps would be to try to email these people with details of the present situation and to see if on the basis of progress made some of these formerly interested parties would be comfortable with becoming more involved with the Forum again
87.7 Site Allocation Plan and other LCC Consultations
a. Transport Plan.
Peter hoped to be able to submit a response in respect of the consultation allied to the Transport Supplementary Planning Document by the 14th April
b. Statement of Community Involvement
Similarly the consultation related to the draft revised Statement of Community Involvement has to be submitted by the 19th April. It was particularly difficult trying to respond to two quite important consultations in what were fairly concurrent timetables.
87.8 Local Issues and Planning Applications.
a. Commercial St Shop: Retrospective Application
The general view of the meeting was that as long as the window obscuring panel has been omitted from the design of the shop front (which it has) then this was broadly acceptable.
.
b. Trees at Market Cross Surgery
This needs to be looked at further
c. Tree Work at Park House, Park Lane
Peter indicated that this work looked to relate to raising of crowns etc. as opposed to any wholescale removal of trees. As always it was quite difficult to interpret the plans provided
d. Tree removal at 105, Commercial St, Ebor House
The meeting felt that this work was unlikely to be unacceptable. Peter said he would check into the matter
87.9 Any Other Business.
There wasn’t any other business as far as the writer can remember, but if this was not the situation it can be rectified at the next meeting. Peter wished attendees a Happy Easter.
87.10 Next Meeting
This will be held on Monday 9th May at Haigh Road Community Centre at 7.00pm

 

NEXT MEETING Haigh Road Community Centre on Monday 11th April 2022 at 7.00pm

DRAFT ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No 86
Monday 14th March 2022 at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre

86.1 Welcome.
Present: Cllr. Conrad Hart-Brooke, Cllr. Stewart Golton, Jan Cleverly (LCC), Mary Fleet, Colin Bell, John McGrory, Peter Ellis
Apologies Roy Garside, Anne German, Cllr. Diane Chapman, John McVeigh, Richard Walker

86.2 Approval of the notes of the Previous Meeting.
Notes of the previous meeting are accepted to be a true record.

86.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting

85.4 Draft Intentions Document
Peter had contacted Ian Mackay in respect of a Zoom meeting

85.6c Membership Initiative
A list of previous members to contact is still being collated

86.4 Draft Policy Intentions Document.
A Zoom meeting with Ian Mackay, to discuss the Policy Intention Document had taken place on the 28th February and Ian was to send a confirmatory letter in respect of the matters discussed. However to date this had not been received and Peter would send a further letter reminding him of a lack of reply sometime this week. The main aspects that were discussed related to the need for templates allied to Green Spaces and Non-designated Heritage Assets as identified in Abbie Miladinovic’s letter. From a Greenspace perspective Ian said it was important to exactly identify the extent of such spaces and where the land is not in public ownership, to try to speak to the private land owners. (Swithens Plantation would be an example of this). In addition Peter had asked for greater clarity on what further needed to be done to allow the draft Plan to be progressed. Public engagement was mentioned and Peter was able to say
that we had been canvassing opinion with the display boards at the Saturday Coffee mornings at the Blackburn Hall
Action: Peter to contact Ian Mackay for letter 

86.5 Haighside Wood.
In Anne’s absence, Peter said that work was continuing in the Wood and that Anne had obtained a selection of wildflower plugs including Kidney Vetch, Red Clover, Birds Foot Trefoil, Salad Burnet, Primroses and Bluebells. Peter had also obtained a further delivery of Bluebells meaning that the intention is that the working group plant a further 300 bulbs (in the green) in the next week or so. Cllr Golton said that it would be good if some sort of strategy could be put together for the Wood and that this would help also in the context of future funding. Colin said there had been some suggestion that the LCC Conservation Officer had already done something on this front, but this could not be confirmed in Anne’s absence. Roy Garside had previously, in discussion with Peter, made the same comment. Peter said that following his discussion with Roy it had been his intention to try to put something together with input from members of the working group which would include an annotated zonal plan or aerial photograph that would highlight the work done to date and the aims and objectives going forward.
Peter also took the opportunity to thank Councillor Golton for supporting the Wood initiative in respect of the funding allied to liability insurance that allowed the working group to continue with its efforts to improve the Wood environment. 

86.6 Communications and Membership.

a. Engagement sessions.
Peter and Colin had taken the Policy Intentions display boards referred to in the previous meeting to the 5th March Blackburn Hall Coffee Morning. There had been quite a bit of interest toward the end of the event and some explanation was needed. As alluded to previously, the intention is to break the Policy Intentions display down into different themes to make the presentation less complicated. Peter said he hoped to devote the next display to Design or Heritage and probably the latter. The Coffee mornings in general were proving to be very successful and an ideal opportunity to engage with a selection of people from the local community.
Action: Display to be configured for 2nd April

 
b. Methodist Church “This Beautiful World” event (18th &19th) June.
Nothing further to add in respect of this event except to say that Peter has made it known with the organisers that the Forum intends to bring a display related to Greenspace( and in particular proposed local greenspaces) to the event. This may be a display that has a separate section for Carlton. Cllr Golton indicated that the horticultural fraternity might be interested in being involved with this event.

 
c. Membership initiative.
Peter apologised for the slow progress being made in respect of this matter and hoped to have completed a list of viable contacts shortly with the intent, as was indicated in the last meeting, to put together a “round robin” email describing progress to date and asking for assistance with the next phase of the work.

Action: List to be configured

NON AGENDA ITEM Jan Cleverly, Tenant Engagement Officer (OS Leeds) had kindly attended the meeting and Peter asked her to outline her role and interests in being in attendance. Jan outlined that she was the Tennant and Engagement Officer serving the Outer South Committee and provides support to that Committee and in so doing is involved with decision making on bids e.g. environmental bids, initiatives related to joint funding and a host of issues that relate to tenants, social housing, and various community initiatives within the Outer South boundary that includes Morley, Ardsley and Robin Hood as well as the Rothwell Ward. Clearly there could be a community based initiative that might result from work that the Forum is engaged in and with which Jan might be able to assist. In addition attending the meeting represented an opportunity for Jan to appreciate the stage the Forum has reached in the process that will ultimately and hopefully see the publication of a Neighbourhood Plan…a process that fundamentally revolves around the needs and preferences of the community and residents with whom Jan liaises.
 

86.7 Site Allocation Plan and other LCC Consultations
While not specifically indicated on the agenda there had still not, since the Forum had responded to the SAP consultation in respect of the Main Modifications to the document, been any further information made available.

a. Transport Plan. The Transport SPD contains guidance on Transport Policy context; street design in new developments, including layout, speed restraint, servicing, footway and cycleway requirements, landscaping and highway tree planting, garages and drives, designing for disabled people, materials and adoption standards; how to produce a travel plan to support a planning application; parking standards for new developments; electric vehicle charging points, requirements for public transport enhancements where accessibility standards are not currently met and requirements for access to existing or provision of new bus stops, bus shelters and real time passenger information; and cumulative impact payments methodology.
Bearing in mind the content of this document (shown above) it was thought there were certainly a number of subjects with which the Forum has concerned itself in the past. The intention would be to submit a response, though it was recognised that the document was substantial (277 pages). Peter asked for comments on the document which can be found at: http://www.leeds.gov.uk/Transportspd
Action: Comments from the Forum to LCC are required by the 14th April

b. Statement of Community Involvement
It was also noted there is a further consultation related to Community Involvement that must be submitted by the 19th April. It was noted with a certain amount of irony that public engagement on this and the above referred to transport document at the same time was not conducive to response and that the Transport document is so detailed that again it is difficult to respond. It is hoped to include some comments that reflect this sort of situation
The document can be seen at:
https://www.leeds.gov.uk/sci
Action: Comments from the Forum to LCC are required by the 19th April

86.8 Local Issues and Planning Applications.

a. Commercial St Shop
A retrospective application had been submitted, this time without the offending window panel that suddenly appeared some weeks ago. Essentially the present application retains the newly installed door shutter and includes an over window sign.
b. Glebe Farm Commercial Development
A fairly detailed response was submitted to the Planning Department in respect of the development by the Forum and this also highlighted what were considered inconsistent comments by the LCC Policy and Plans consultees. The
Forum maintained that the development on greenbelt land was not satisfactory in the context of planning policy or the National Planning Policy Framework. The basis of these comments were circulated to the Committee on the 18th February.
c. Trees at Market Cross Surgery
Peter had not looked at this application in detail, but would try to do so and respond if deemed appropriate
d. Tree work at the Park House, Park Lane
This application on reflection does not appear to relate to removal of trees in general but work to trees

86.9 Any Other Business.
There was a discussion related to the quality and location of community noticeboards, access and key-holders
It was also indicated there would be a quiz night in aid of Ukraine on Friday (18th March) and that the Forum might like to enter a team.
 

86.10 Next Meeting
This will be held on Monday 11th April at Haigh Road Community Centre at 7.00pm 

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No 85
Monday 14th February 2022 at 7pm via Zoom
 

85.1 Welcome.
Present: Cllr Diane Chapman, Anne German, Mary Fleet, Angela Kellett,
Peter Ellis
Apologies Colin Bell, Roy Garside, John McVeigh, Richard Walker, John McGrory, Cllr Stewart Golton, Cllr Conrad Hart-Brooke
 

85.2 Approval of the notes of the Previous Meeting.
Notes of the previous meeting are accepted to be a true record.
 

85.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting
These will be dealt with in the present meeting.
 

85.4 Draft Policy Intentions Document.
After a communication from Ian McKay offering Peter a Zoom meeting to go over some parts of the Draft Policy Intentions Document. Peter replied with suggestions of possible days for the meeting but as of now Ian McKay’s response is still awaited. In particular, subjects for discussion are the required forms Abbie Miladinovic had referred to in respect of Non-designated Heritage Assets and Local Greenspaces, but also a clear understanding of what needed to be progressed prior to starting the work to configure the draft Neighbourhood Plan
Action: Peter will contact him again.
 

85.5 Haighside Wood.
We have managed to hold a few work days through the winter because the weather has been so mild. Scrub has been cleared so we could plant 10 mixed species of trees and hedgerow. We can look forward to lovely Cherry Blossom and flowers on the Mountain Ash along with berries in autumn. This was completed earlier this month along with planting 25 wood Anemone plants. The Snowdrops are beginning to flower and soon we will have lots of
Primroses in bloom and hopefully some Bluebells. Rod and Colin also re positioned the 6 nest boxes and on checking the boxes we found 3 had been occupied last year which is a success. In the spring we will be planting more woodland plants which will attract insects, bees and butterflies.
 

85.6 Communications and Membership.
a. Engagement sessions.
There was a public engagement session held at Blackburn Hall on Saturday 5th February. This was quite successful but Peter said he felt we probably had too much information up on the display boards, so at future events we will present one theme at a time in order that we might get a better and more focussed response. It was noted that the next session at the Hall is on the 5thof March
b. Methodist Church “This Beautiful World” event (18th &19th) June.
This event is all about the environment so Peter has suggested this would be a good opportunity for the Forum to hold a public engagement session focusing on the Environment and Green Spaces information which is included in the Draft Policy Intentions Document. The members felt that this represented a good opportunity.
c. Membership initiative.
Peter is collating the email addresses of likely contacts with the intent of putting together a “round robin” email describing progress to date and asking for assistance with the next phase of the work.
Action: Schedule of names to be identified
d. A.G.M.
Peter brought up the subject of holding an AGM meeting this year. It was accepted by all that progress must be made on this matter. The venue will be the Haigh Road Community Hall and the date decided by all will be Monday 12th September. It was agreed that good advertisement is the key. The suggestions put forward were LS26 face book page, Woodlesford and Jobs News and the café in the park. Also the notification could appear on the Councillors own web site pages.
 

85.7. Site Allocation Plan.
a. Consultation.
Since the Forum had responded to the SAP consultation in respect of the Main Modifications to the document there had been no further information made available.
b. Clarification allied to Wood Lane.
Roy Garside had identified that there was a potential inconsistency in respect of the “Garden Centre “development site within the Outer South SAP. The site had been removed from consideration as a result of the Main Modifications in the Outer South portion of the site, but it was less clear whether this was so in respect of the portion of the site within the East Leeds HMCA and the Brown Field part of the site. It was confirmed, following correspondence with LCC that the both the Greenbelt and Brown Field parts of the site had been removed from the SAP i.e. the entire site. The outline planning application for the development however remains “current” on the LCC Public Access website.
 

85.8 Local Issues and Planning Applications.
a. Work to trees at Market Cross Surgery.
This matter was not discussed in detail but involves the replacement of maple trees and work to an existing cherry tree.
Action: Peter to investigate further
 

b. 34, Wakefield Road (9 dwellings) reserved matters
It was not proposed to make any representation in respect of this reserved matters application
Glebe Farm
** While not on the agenda the subject of the commercial development at Glebe Farm was brought to attention. Roy had spoken to Peter and indicated that there were changes to the original application which had not been brought to the Forum’s attention and that the policy and plans consultees seemed to be in favour of the latest plans despite the fact that the basis of the original objections and the consultees previous stance still applied.
Action: Peter would look at this in further detail and put together a response and circulate.
 

85.9 Any Other Business.
Anne brought up the issue of scrambling and quad bikes on the Country Park. Anne had recently sent a letter to Cllrs Golton, Conrad Hart-Brooke about what she had encountered on a recent visit to the Country Park back in December. Anne was witness to quad and scrambling bikes gaining access to the park through the entrance to the park on Bullough Lane. Anne said what a dreadful mess these bikes are making of the meadowland and the area around the summit. Cllr Hart-Brooke wrote back saying they Councillors were aware of what is happening because there had been a number of complaints about this
very matter. Conrad stated he had raised this issue at that week’s – namely 26th January – community safety meeting which was attended by teams, including local police. Between Diane, Stewart and Conrad along with the support police and council teams they will keep working to get the Park as secure as possible. Anne asked Diane if there had been any more news. Diane said no there hadn’t but she would contact Cllr Hart-Brooke for further update. Diane said she would report back to the Forum.
 

85.10 Next Meeting
This will be held on Monday 14th March at Haigh Road Community Centre at 7.00pm

 

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No 83 NOTES

Monday 8th November 2021 at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.

83.1 Welcome

Present Anne German, Colin Bell, Mary Fleet, Cllr Stewart Golton, Cllr Conrad Hart Brooke, Peter Ellis

Apologies Roy Garside, John McGrory, Sandra Thompson, Richard Walker, John McVeigh. Cllr Diane Chapman

83.2 Approval of the Notes of the Previous Meeting.

Notes of the previous meeting were accepted as a true record.

83.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting.

Any matters were applicable to items to be discussed elsewhere be in the meeting.

83.4 Draft Policy Intentions Document update

Peter had circulated a response from Abbie Miladinovic that resulted from the submission of the draft policy document to LCC and this was discussed in the meeting. These comments were considered helpful though seemed to require input that exceeded the understood remit of a PID e.g. detailed maps etc. However it was clear these would form part of the draft Neighbourhood Plan and would need to be produced. Assistance was offered in respect of some aspects of the Policy and it was agreed that such help would be very much welcomed. In addition there were proformas /templates to complete relating to surveys of Local Greenspaces and Non Designated Heritage Assets and Peter said he would obtain these.

Action: Peter to write to Abbie Miladinovic / Ian Mackay confirming assistance would be welcomed and to request the aforementioned templates

83.5 Haighside Wood.

Anne had emailed Peter to say that she had ordered a dozen trees for Haighside Wood together with a quantity of Yellow Rattle seed for distribution on the grass land particularly at the entrance to the Wood. This is part of the initiative to try and create a wild flower area.

Action: the Haighside Wood Group to further scarify the grass area and sow the aforementioned seed as soon as possible

83.6 Communications and Membership

The question of providing a display for the monthly coffee morning at the Blackburn Hall was discussed again and it was agreed to progress this. Peter said he would try to put something together using the Committee’s display boards. Colin said he would assist putting together if Peter needed help

Action: Peter to modify the display boards to reflect objectives and policies contained within the PID together with suitable images

Peter had to admit he had not made much progress on the initiative to contact former interested parties with a view to increasing the active membership

Action: To try to put together an email describing progress to date and to circulate this to previously known email addresses with an invitation to future meetings

83.7 Site Allocation Plan.

Peter reported the latest information shown on the Helen Wilson (Programme Officer) web site related to the consultation process allied to the modifications to the Site Allocation Plan. Since the conclusion of the examination hearings there is a schedule of further information available. Leeds Site Allocations Plan Remittal | Helen Wilson Consultancy Limited (hwa.uk.com)

83.8 Local Issues and Planning applications

a. Rothwell Greenway

Following on from the last meeting the deficiencies allied to the plan were again discussed and some of the linkages that had not been taken into account and the need for it to be extended beyond the A61. The writer is still not entirely clear of some of the exact locations that pertain here and will confirm in the next meeting

b. Trees at Springhead House

Peter noted that an application had been submitted. It was less than clear from the information provided as to whether this application was consistent with previous assertions and the requirements allied to trees within conservation areas in terms of re-provision etc.

Action: Peter to scrutinize the application and respond accordingly

c. Communications 5G mast at Sixth Avenue

An application had been submitted allied to the installation of a 5G mast at Sixth Avenue and the applicants and the detail was exactly as the submission that was rejected at Haigh Road. The proposed mast would be 15mtrs high. Cllr. Hart Brooke indicated that the location probably reflected the location of existing equipment and also the fact that 5G relies on shorter ranges to work effectively. However Peter said he did not see any difference between this application and the one submitted for Haigh Road and read out the Planning Department response that said “ The siting and appearance of the proposed mast , in particular its height, design and position, would result in an incongruous and unduly prominent feature within the street-scene…etc”. It seemed difficult not to draw the same conclusions about the Sixth Avenue proposal

Action: Peter to respond to the application on behalf of the Forum

Discussed under 83.8, but not included on the agenda was the application related to changes to the Aldi supermarket delivery times which would have seen them extended both in the morning and evening. Peter apologised for not submitting a response to this. Fortunately however the application had rightly been turned down.

83.9 Any Other Business.

• Discussed under 83.8, but strictly other business was the question of tree planting in Rothwell. Cllr Golton indicated that LCC had proposed planting tree whips to meet planting targets. However without consultation they had proposed to plant the trees in areas of Springhead Park that had been designated areas for relaxed mowing where the intention had been to encourage proliferation of wild flowers and biodiversity. This was opposed by the Councillors. There has been planting at the pastures which had been done without consultation, but was perhaps acceptable. It has been suggested that the Park boundary on Oulton Lane be reinforced with tree planting, particularly because ofthe issues lately with travellers accessing the Oulton end of the Park. Some other areas are being potentially considered.
• There was also an update relating to FORCE and the proposals relating to the Council Offices becoming a community asset. A display to show the proposals for its use were being planned.

83.10 Next meeting. This will be held on Monday 13th December at Haigh Road Community Centre at 7.00pm.

 

 

STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING Minutes of “virtual” meeting No 80
80.1 Welcome
To all recipients:
80.2 Approval of the Notes of the Previous Meeting
Very few replies were received, but the overall view was that the notes of the previous meeting were accurately reported.
80.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting
79.4 Draft Policy Intentions Document
Comments received are included at 80.4
79.7 Communications and Membership
Zoom meeting was not organised
Contact of previous memebers not yet instigated and work ongoing
80.4 Draft Policy Intentions Document
A few comments were received following circulation of the latest draft of the document and requests for observations.
Sandra made reference to aspects allied to Electrical vehicle charging provision and extending that provision particularly within the centre of Rothwell. Colin also stressed the need for treating the carbon reduction aspects very seriously.
Anne indicated that she felt the list of projects was satisfactory and that the list of local greenspaces for designation was consistent with previous discussions
80.5 Haighside Wood
Anne reported that she and Rod had visited Haighside Wood in early August and that perhaps as anticipated given the weather some areas were really overgrown and brambles were threatening to impede access on the main pathway. She indicated she would try to contact the “Rights of Way “ people at LCC to see if some trimming could be implemented. She also indicated that on visiting they were pleased to report a significant number of butterflies had bee seen around the wood and grassland.
Action An intent to arrange further workdays later in the Autumn when things are starting to die down
80.6 Communications and Membership Unfortunately further Zoom meetings had not progressed as intended. However it is hoped there is a place for such meetings going forward , particularly with reference to detailed scrutiny of documents etc Action : To agree how to mix In person meetings and Zoom meetings to further the work allied to the Plan Little progress has been made in terms of contacting previously named memebers , but it is still intened that this will be progressed
Action: To contact individuals from the originally identified membership by email
80.7 Site Allocation Plan
The examination of the modified Site Allocation Plan in respect of the omission of Greenbelt sites. The Helen Wilson Consultancy Ltd is the programme officer and the latest comment is as follows:
9 September 2021 The Council have identified parts of the SAP where it is considered that additional modifications that arise from Main Modification 1 – 39 will be required (Referenced in EXR5) this relates to the hearing agendas for Tuesday 14 September. The hearing agendas have been agreed and these are attached . It is noted that the main protagonists are a large contingent of developers , but there is representation by Aireborough Development Neighbourhood Forum and their retained QC (Aireborough were of course the organisation that appealed in respect of the Leeds SAP resulting in the judgement of the 8th June 2020 ). As a result of the Aireborough Appeal, LCC modified the Plan and submitted the modifications to the Secretary of State and now the identified modifications are the subject of the present examination
Recent information from Aireborough Forum was partially circulated and this is also attached .
80.8 Local issues and Planning Applications
Home Lea House.
LCC approved the closure of Home Lea House on the 23rd June , despite significant local opposition including written representation by the Forum
Restaurant at Market Cross:
The application for a restaurant and take away is known to be withdrawn , though the Public Access site does not seem to reflect this situation very clearly as it still described as a “current application”
Glebe Farm
The application previously brought to attention i.e conversion of farm buildings to commercial premises on Wakefield Road (and which was responded to by the Forum) is still current and no decision made. The Public Access site has not been updated
Lamberts Yard
Despite further representation nothing further has been heard allied to the present state of this building. Peter is to chase this up again. If nothing is done the building will be impacted by yet another winter. Bearing in mind the comments from Building Control who indicated that matters would be followed up if nothing was progressed by last winter, it is difficult to have confidence in the situation
80.9 Any Other Business
Land at the South of Haighside Estate:
Peter has written to the Councillors in respect of this matter but nothing further has transpired. The land in question is deemed “White Land” and means that it is land without a specific allocation. However notwithstanding this and a lack of interest from the Council or the original developer , something needs to be done. It is hoped that a meeting can be arranged with the Councillors with a view to contacting Wimpey( the developer of the Haighside Estate to try to improve the space. Thespace is included within the Policy Intentions Document in respect of greenspace allocation.
Action: To meet Councillors to discuss this matter
80.10 Next Meeting : It has been agreed that the next meeting will be “In person” and will be at Haigh Road Community Centre at 7.00pm on Monday 13th September
PE 9.9.21

 

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM:
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING Minutes of “virtual” meeting No 79
79.1 Welcome
To all recipients:
79.2 Approval of the Notes of the Previous Meeting
Very few replies were received, but the overall view was that the notes of the previous meeting were accurately reported.
79.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting
78.7 Communications and Membership
As referred to in the Agenda, it was indicated in the last minutes that a pilot Zoom meeting be arranged , and this was done , but unfortumately further bona fide meetings have not yet been progressed as a result of this.
78.8 Site Allocation Plan
Peter Ellis (PE) did write to LCC in respect of ensuring that Rothwell Neighbourhood Forum would be copied in to any relevant material that relates to the version of the SAP submitted to the Secretary Estate and the independent examination of the latest document.
78.10 Any Other Business
Aireborough Forum: PE did contact Aireborough Forum in resspect of ensuring that useful information could be made available to the Rothwell Forum and should now receive notifications by email relating to the Aireborough blog.Any information forthcoming to be circulated
79.4 Draft Policy Intentions Document
The draft policy document is subject to an update and the revised document is to follow shortly. It accounts for previously received comments, the advice obtained from the LCC neighbourhood planning team and also includes more details allied to green spaces , non designated heritage assets and possible projects. In respect of heritage assets it is thought that more work may be needed to be progressed to more comprehensively reflect perhaps more hidden and less obvious aspects within the Neighbourhood Area. However the list provided by Mary Fleet is quite extensive. Few additional suggestions were forthcoming as a result of the request made within the Agenda.
Colin Bell asks if the current list of possible local greenspaces and non designated heritage assets could be circulated and these as indicated will be included in the updated version of the document.
Action: If any potential greenspaces or non designated heritage assets are obviously absent please do make these known
The other issue related to identification of Projects. Thank you to Anne German for providing an assessment of possible and aspirational projects particularly directed toward /affiliated with green spaces. These included land at Haighside, derelict areas in Marsh St Car Park, spaces at John O Gaunt’s estate, disused railway track south of the Pastures/ Haighside Wood.
Unless there are any significant concerns about the document in its latest form the intention is to submit the draft document to LCC in order that Neighbourhood Team can provide us with comments. The overall aim is to be in a position to start to author the draft Neighbourhood Plan
Action : to collate any responses to the latest document and to submit a draft document to LCC
79.5 Haighside Wood
Anne German reports that at the end of April the “ Haighside Group” met and further plantings of common dog violets and snakeshead fritillary. In the second week of June the Group met again to progress some maintenance of some of the overgrown areas and to plant Yellow Rattle in some of the grassy areas. The spring flower plantings in the Wood are starting to be more obvious and apart from the many snowdrops and primroses in evidence, bluebells are starting to become more apparent. As a result of the work that Rod , Anne and Colin have done on certain areas and to introduce more light, it is clear that diversity of wild flowers is beginning to increase. Thanks to them for their efforts
PE is hoping to provide an updated register of plants as a means of introducing some on going monitoring.
79.6 Forum Re-designation
This item will not appear again as the Forum has been formally resignated.
79.7 Communications and Membership The general views are that we must begin to hold Zoom meetings and as reported in the last minutes the ability to scrutinise documents in detail is a definite advantage and discussion related to the Policy Intentions Document following its initial submission to LCC would be very useful. As indicated previously it is obviously still possible for people who do not attend the meetings to make comments allied to agendas that will still have to be produced and documents will still be circulated by email Action : Zoom meeting to be organised Not much progress has been made in terms of collating membership details and more effort is going to be necessary to arrive at a potential list. It will then be necessary to email all those identified to see if they would be interested in being actively involved with the Forum i.e.to as the agenda suggests “to try to re-engage with some component of the originally identified membership”
Action: To contact individuals from the originally identified membership by email
78.8 Site Allocation Plan
The status of the SAP following the High Court Relief Judgment is as follows and stated on the LCC website
“The effect of this relief is that all housing sites (including mixed use sites) that, immediately before the adoption of the SAP were in the green belt, (37 sites) will be remitted back to the Secretary of State and the Planning Inspectorate for further examination. During this remittal process these 37 housing sites will be considered as not adopted and as such will return to the green belt until re-examined. The remainder of the SAP remains adopted and carries full weight”. Louise Gibbons BA Hons MRTPI been appointed as the Inspector to examine the Plan. The Inspector has recently issued (14.6.21) ,a schedule of “ matters Issues and questions” for the forthcoming Examination hearings and these are attached.
Rothwell Neighbourhood Forum will not be participating in this examination process for the reasons explained in the previous meeting minutes, but hopefully will be party to information that results from the process in a timely manner as explained in the Agenda notes for this “meeting!”.
79.9 Local issues and Planning Applications
Home Lea House: No further news in respect of the Plan to close the home, over and above the response from the Director of Adults and Health to the letter submitted by the Forum. The Leeds Council Executive Board will be considering the outcome of the report prepared by the aforementioned Director ( on 23.6.21) to determine the future of two care homes in Leeds, including Home Lea.John McGrory indicates that in all this correspondence from LCC, no mention is made of actions made previously to try and close down Dolphin Manor. The Forum in its response made that point, bearing in mind Dolphin Manor seems somewhat ironically to be part of the argument as to why Home Lea should now be closed
5G Mast at Churchfield Lane : The Forum submitted an objection to this application which was exactly the same as a previous application that was rejected by the planning department. The present application was refused on the 9th June on the same basis as the previous submission.
Restaurant at Market Cross: The objection submitted by the Forum was one of 20 objections that appear on the Public Access site including a response from the New Cross Surgery Patients Group and Moorfield House/New Cross Surgery. There has been recent conjecture as to the need for a planning application based on the former use of the building and the proposed use being now in the same “use class” and that this would allow permitted development. However the proposed restaurant includes a take-away facility which is in a different use class and therefore the matter is not entirely clear. In any event the application still appears on the Public Access site and is still described as current which means no decision has been made. Colin Bell made anumber of comments related to the application and it is hoped these were adequately reflected in the Forum response. Thanks also to Roy Garside for his comprehensive views on the application contained in his own submission.
Other: The application previously brought to attention i.e conversion of farm buildings to commercial premises on Wakefield Road (and which was responded to by the Forum) is still current and nodecision made.
John McGrory points out that we should keep an eye on the actions taken relating to 9, Oulton Lane and the retrospective approved application related to demolition and making good walls etc
The modifications to the cottage at Lamberts Yard was approved some months ago and the structure, notably the chimney has been subjected to winter weather etc and despite assurances to building control that matters would be dealt with as soon as planning
permission was obtained , nothing appears to have been done. Building control are now in receipt of a further letter from the Forum in this regard
79.10 Any Other Business
Land at the South of Haighside Estate: There exists a plot of land that was part of the Wimpey built estate which was supposed to be open space provide as part of the development that was instigated in the mid to late 1970s. The land has not been maintained and particularly in the winter months is an eyesore. Efforts have been made to understand the status of the land via dialogue with LCC. It appears there is no legal agreement between the Council and Wimpey and therefore no formal requirement for Wimpey to maintain the land, indeed the land is described as “White Land”( open land not designated for development or change of use, or on which development is not allowed). Essentially the land is owned by Wimpey, but they have resisted any suggestion of responsibility for the land even though ethically it is clearly their responsibility. It is proposed to contact, Wimpey via involvement with local councillors, in an effort to try and obtain some redress.A request allied to this matter has been made to local councillors.
The land will in any event feature in the schedule of green spaces contained in the Neighbourhood Plan.
79.11 Next Meeting
An Agenda will be made available a week or so, in respect of the next meeting, however it is hoped that , future meetings may continue on Zoom, though as noted in 79.7, comments in response to Agendas will be included in resultant minutes.
PE 24.6.21

 

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM:
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING Minutes of “virtual” meeting No 78
78.1 Welcome
To all recipients:
78.2 Approval of the Notes of the Previous Meeting
From the few replies received the view was that the notes of the previous meeting were accurately reported (based on previous comments received)
78.3 Matters and Actions Arising from the Previous Meeting
77.4 Draft Policy Intentions Document
Work on going to include aspects identified by the LCC Neighbourhood Planning Team allied to other policy issues, including projects and aspirational policies. PE has spoken to Abbie Miladinovic from LCC and has an improved understanding of the extent of issues that can be included.
77.5 Haighside Wood
Further work has progressed at Haighside Wood. More detail provided in 78.5
77.6 Forum Re-designation
The end date for responses to the application for re-designation was the 3rd March. LCC putting a report together as a result of any responses received. More detail in 78.6
77.7 Communication and Membership
Work to collate membership /former membership contacts on going and update for the Blog and Record being authored, but incomplete as yet.
77.8 Site Allocation Plan
Detail provided at 78.8
77.9 Local Issues and Planning Applications
Oulton Lane Retrospective Application: for removal of a listed building- response submitted
Home Lea Care Home Closure: Forum response submitted
Further information provided at 78.9
Plaque for converted coach house at Park Lane- request still to submit (previously brought to attention with the LCC Conservation Officer)
Tree planting still not clear as to the situation allied to this initiative. Further investigation required
78.4 Draft Policy Intentions Document
As was indicated in the Agenda for this meeting there are other aspects that need to be included within the draft policy document. Roy Garside had indicated that there needed to be more background information included and particularly some reference to the aims and objectives of the Forum as defined in the constitution. The challenge is frame these in the context of the agreed objectives for the Plan that are already referred to in the draft document.
There are number of other changes and inclusions that need to be made to reference policies for zones of Rothwell, particularly in respect of local design policies and consistent with the work that was done to produce Character Assessments.
Site specific policies need to be strengthened. Obvious contenders are the green spaces, green corridors, but also any specific developments. Sometimes there is allocation of land for different types of development to meet locally identified needs is included as part of this, though this is something that the Forum was not content to consider
In addition aspirational policies need to be incorporated into the draft with reference to any projects that fall into that category. These are initiatives that the Forum supports, but which will require community funding or buy in from other organisations and community groups. As the Neighbourhood Planning Team said
Whilst aspirational policies do not guarantee that the aspirations will be met, it does allow local people to recognise that their wants/needs have been captured within the plan, it also allows the NP to set out what future projects might take place in the area and lend support to them and use the NP to bid for funding
PE has spoken to Abbie Miladinovic to discuss some of these aspects. It is also thought that reference to the Holbeck NP would be very helpful in this and other regards as it is very well
set out and the issues above can be recognised. As the Holbeck Plan won a national prize and has been adopted it seems sensible to try to emulate the structure of this plan and the Plan is attached for reference
Anne German makes the following points: Aspirational Document. Footpaths/Cycle Route 1. I am lead to believe that this will apply to the creation of the new Public Footpath/Cycle route that has been discussed some time ago with Roy Garside and Peter. This proposed footpath is the now disused Mineral Railway that runs from Wood Lane and past St George’s on the West side then carry’s on up beside the agricultural fields to the, South, past Dolphin Beck to meet up with the Disused Railway footpath and would also connect to Robin Hood. 2. Also the Forum would work with Leeds City Council regarding the continuation of the South Leeds Corridor. This and the creation of new Footpath/Cycle route is not ‘realistic’ at the moment because of the lack of funds and manpower within LCC but is never the less an ‘Aspiration in our Neighbourhood Plan’. Infrastructure policies e.g. (housing developments should contribute to green infrastructure. Plus more of a housing mix across the neighbourhood area) is a very important one. Protective Policies. This must be included in our Plan so our existing heritage, green infrastructure etc. should be protected.
78.5 Haighside Wood
Anne and Rod took the chance to go into the wood on Monday 15th February to carry on with some cutting back encroaching bramble and a bit more tree thinning before the birds start nesting. The snowdrops and primroses are beginning to flower.
As regards trying to involve more people Anne does have a suggestion but at the moment this can’t be done because of the pandemic but it will be looked at once the restrictions are lifted. Anne and Rod, PE and Colin Bell were at the Wood on 9th March to thin out further bramble and planted a few Snakehead Fritillary (Fritillaria meleagris)
78.6 Forum Re-designation
The application response end date was the 3rd March. PE has removed all the notices that were posted on lampposts, but still to remove from notice boards on Marsh St and at the Manor Estate. Response from LCC expected by the end of the Month (March). It is presently unknown if LCC received many comments
78.7 Communications and Membership The implementation of Zoom meetings. Anne feels it should be quite easy it is quite easy to get this up and running. It requires installing an App also a tutorial on how to proceed is available. Anne will discuss this further with Peter.
Peter has now some knowledge at hosting Zoom meetings, though improvement is probably required. Particularly useful is the ability to screen share and look at particular documents and letters in detail. In some ways this aspect is easier than circulating lots of copies of often long /coloured documents at a physical meeting. Being able to bring them up on the screen for everyone to look at and the ability to discuss can work very well. Membership details being collated and update being authored for inclusion in the blog and the Rothwell Record
Sandra Thompson said she had attempted to garner some view of what social media platforms would be good for targeting younger people.
Action: Pilot zoom meeting to be arranged and if a success to continue with this until it is possible to have physical meetings. It will still be possible for people who do not attend to make comments allied to agendas that will still need to be produced
78.8 Site Allocation Plan
There was a consultation relating to the recent changes to the Site Allocation Plan which was agreed by LCC to remove former Green Belt land from the SAP. All the sites within the Forum Designated boundary were therefore removed. The Acting Chair has to admit he should have actively responded to the consultation to support the action, but regrettably did not do so.
PE to write to LCC to try to ensure that the Forum is still included or can see a copy of any associated correspondence in respect of this matter which might have occurred automatically if a response had been made. (Apologies from the Chair)
78.9 Local issues and Planning Applications
Home Lea House: response was submitted. Reference was also made to a document produced by the Director for Adults and health at LCC was obtained from the Outer South Committee Agenda for the 15th March which outlined to reasons for the action considered and it was possible to refer to this in the final version of the response both in terms of changes to models of care and also some of the alternatives that were described
Wakefield Road Agricultural Building Conversion Application: A response from the Forum was submitted objecting to the proposals primarily on the basis of impact on the greenbelt in the context of the proposed design and the LCC designated employment areas. It was stressed that the Forum was not opposed to developments that support employment, but that these developments needed to be in the right location and should respect employment area definitions. (The response was circulated by PE)
Graham Fox made an observation related to pavements and access and this was included in the response.
Angela Kellett agreed that future employment is something to be considered but that it (development) should be within keeping of the rural aspects of the area and the Local Plan. She also agreed about that this proposed development, and any other future developments for that matter, would have a big impact on the accessibility and increased volume of traffic in this area. Traffic volume was referred to in the response as was the protection of rural aspects of the area.
9, Oulton Lane: Forum response was submitted in respect of this retrospective application for removal of a listed building at the rear of this property. Consent has been received with some conditions (including a request for a plan to deal with the damaged boundary wall) and the submission from Historic England is particularly pertinent and the Forum response was consistent with this. The Forum comments have now been removed following consent and only consultee responses remain including that form Historic England.
20/07495/LI | Retrospective listed Building Application for demolition of barn following collapse | 9 Oulton Lane Rothwell Leeds LS26 0EA
78.10 Any Other Business Anne German looked at the question of “Forest the size of tennis courts referred to in the agenda and thought it would be a very good idea and would be ‘aspirational’ project in our plan. She discussed with PE about doing this in an area of Haighside Wood where there’s a large area covered with Bramble. This area is inviting more tree planting.
Sandra Thompson had seen this report on the BBC and felt that we already have reference to planting and maintaining trees in the N. Plan and noted that there was not a lot of “tennis court” size land left in Rothwell. We do have the park where it would appear at least one tennis court forest has been planted. I think it is important that tree planting must be balanced against loss of existing facilities. Sandra, as an aside, was also less than content with the response to a Freedom of Information request in respect of the Leeds Council tree planting plan which did not suggest much enthusiasm for answering the questions posed.
Forests the size of tennis courts - BBC News
Aireborough Forum
Action: PE is still intending to contact Aireborough Forum with a view to establishing some links with this group, particularly in the light of its recent success relating to the appeal allied to the SAP. Finally it should be recorded that Oulton and Woodlesford Forum have now submitted their Neighbourhood Plan for scrutiny by an Examiner and PE has written David Cove to congratulate them for getting so far with this. “A milestone and a relief” was how he described it.
78.11 Next Meeting
An Agenda will be made available a week or so, in respect of the next meeting, though dependent on the pilot event, future meetings may continue on Zoom, though as noted in 78.7, comments in response to Agendas will be included in resultant minutes.
PE 18.3.21 

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM: STREETING COMMITTEE MEETING NO 73
Monday 27th January 2020 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.

73,1 Present Peter Ellis, Anne German, Angela Kellett, John McGrory, Richard Walker, John McVeigh, Mary Fleet, Chris Wilson.

Apologies Sandra Thompson. Colin Bell, Cllr Chapman, Cllr Golton.

73.2. Approval of the Notes of Previous Meeting.
Notes of the previous meeting were accepted as a true record.

73.3. Matters Arising from the Previous Meeting.

72.7. Local Issues c. HS2.
Angela asked Peter if we had any more news regarding HS2. Peter said that nothing more was likely to be heard until the imminently awaited government review was published

Extra Item: Swithens Lane Development.
Peter said before we proceed further with the meeting he would like to introduce Chris Wilson a resident on Swithens lane. Chris had come to the meeting to put his concerns regarding the proposed development on the field next to local to his home.

Carter Jonas had written to Peter to invite the Forum to discuss the proposals and he had contacted Chris resulting from correspondence with Roy Garside. Chris suggested that there were perhaps a group of people on Swithens lane that would also be interested to meet the developers. The Forum would try to look at the proposals in the context of the objectives related to housing and also taking account of embryonic policies that had been identified as part of the Policy Intentions Matrix.

Action: Peter would write to Carter Jonas with the intent of organising a meeting

73.4. Draft Policy Intentions Document.
a. Example of completed Policy Intentions document for Identified Theme.

Peter said he had made a start on the policy intentions document that would ultimately be submitted and that would be a precursor to the policies within the eventual Plan. He brought an example of a policy related to greenspace and confirmed that he was aiming to produce something on the lines of the Otley document. There was quite a bit of work involved, but Peter said that he just needed to make progress with a view to trying to complete some sections before the next meeting.

Action: Peter to make further progress on the Policy Intentions document

b. Consultant Assistance.
Mike Dando, a planning consultant, who had much experience in respect of Neighbourhood Plans and had taken some through to completion had written to Peter to ask if he could be of assistance. Peter had written to Mr Dando with a view to meeting him to discuss where
he might be able to assist the Forum and how this might be achieved in a focussed , value for money way.

Action: Peter would try to meet Mr Dando prior to the next meeting

73.5. Theme (Greenspace): specific items.
Anne said there hadn’t been any work done in Haighside Wood in January but would like to arrange a day in February. There is further scrub to be removed and some planting to be progressed.

The seat has arrived at LCC and Anne arranged to meet up with a Mike Horler, Parks & Countryside Maintenance Team on Tuesday 21st January, but he didn’t arrive at the correct time, so Anne has emailed Mike with another date. This meeting is to show Mike where we would like to place the seat in the Wood.

Interpretation Panels: Both the History and Nature Panel designs have now been completed and approved and have now gone to the printers.

73.6. Web Site and Communications.
Nothing to report at the moment.

73.7 Local Issues
a. Wood Lane.

The Wood Lane situation seems to be further and further away from being resolved. The Planning application for 187 spaces at Savannah Way at the Bell Isle office development appears to have stalled for reasons unknown , though the planning website does allude to as an yet unresolved issue allied to missing information in a submitted ecological assessment and a lack of explanation for resolving a loss of natural habitat. Cllr Golton had previously been told that the application would be likely to be accepted on the 6th December, but this had not occurred. It is thought that if the space provision is made this should have a significant impact on the problems that have affected Wood Lane over the last few years, but clearly there is a problem

Action: Peter to try and find out what present situation is in terms of the office park parking

b. Bullough Lane.
Peter was hoping to meet David Cove, Oulton and Woodlesford Neighbourhood Forum, on Tuesday 28th January to ask David if the Bullough lane development is a concern for O and W Forum and whether there would be any merit in working together on this

c. FORCE update.

Work was continuing in respect of updating the Business Plan and Peter indicated that he, Paul Reynolds ( Pavilion Café) and the Councillors had met LCC Head of Asset Management at the Civic Hall on the 22nd January. This had been a productive meeting and a degree of
support was evident. Timescale is now for an updated document, subsuming the concerns of the previously highlighted by LCC, for the end of March

73.8 New and Existing Planning Applications
a. Wakefield Road Cemetery
It was agreed that the location for the proposed cemetery had a number of draw backs and Peter had written to the Committee outlining some of the concerns put forward by LCC Trading and Operational Support Manager who had responsibility for the Council’s Bereavement Provision Service and this comprehensively seemed to find fault with the basis of the application. Peter had put together a submission to LCC Planning by the closing date and had concentrated on the issues of the inappropriate impact of the adjacent 4x4 centre and the question of access for local people

b. Lemonroyd Lock, Fleet Lane.

Peter is meeting David Cove and members of the O and W Forum down at the Leeds Liverpool Canal at Woodlesford on Tuesday 28th January to discuss a planning application from Rowing UK. This application is to build a Rowing Club House. Peter is going along to particularly understand impact this building will have on tree scape and biodiversity.

Action: Peter to report on the meeting

c. Conversion of Coach House,

A further application has been submitted which is ostensibly consistent with the original application (now that the rest of the site is to be devoted to two detached dwellings. The Manor House frame is now incorporated into an extension to the building and the detailed drawing looks acceptable. The main issue is that no one will see the frame dependent on boundary treatment and this is the main comment to take forward together with the issue of a plaque to recognise the existence of the frame.

Action: Peter to look at putting together a response

73.9 Any Other Business.

Nothing further to bring to attention

73.10. Date and Time of Next Meeting.

Monday the 17th February at Haigh Road Centre. Time 7.00pm.


ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No 72
Monday 16th December 2019 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.

72.1 Present:Peter Ellis, John McGrory, John McVeigh, Cllr. Diane Chapman, Sandra Thompson.

Apologies: Anne German, Mary Fleet, Richard Walker, Angela Kellett, Roy Garside, Colin Bell

72.2 Minutes of previous meeting accepted as a true record.

72.3 Matters Arising from the Previous Meeting.
To be dealt with as they arise during this meeting.

72.4 Draft Policy Intentions document.
a. Examples of completed Policy Intentions documents derived from frameworks.
Walton & Otley were considered as examples of policy intention documents. Walton essentially just a framework. Otley larger and more detailed. Peter will try to put together an embryonic document before the next meeting in January utilising the information contained within the Rothwell framework document.

b. Consultant Assistance.
Consideration to be given to using services of a consultant. Mike Dando works for a number of bodies regarding neighbourhood plans pre-submission. He has expertise in plan writing and has worked with several forums, committees and parish councils to prepare for final submission. Mr Dando had approached Peter, who has agreed to meet him for an initial discussion. Nothing will be agreed, but the discussion might identify where best value for money can be achieved and where efforts can be best focussed. Peter will talk to him and update the committee.

72.5 Theme (Greenspace): specific items
a. Haighside Wood
Further work on the wood. Rod, Anne and Peter took delivery of three Rowan trees. They were larger than expected, 6.5 metres. Large holes had to be made, hard work on the unyielding soil. The root balls were large and heavy and the trees had to be rolled into the prepared holes and staked in situ. Also planted were a selection from the remaining plug plants.

A seat has been ordered.

Information boards: A draft of the nature one has been completed and the results impressive (work being progressed by Lynne Gorner). The historic board has been started and Peter has purchased three photographs from Leodis. No copyright problems and Leodis were happy to give permission for use of the images on the panel. He was also obtaining some photocopies from Historic England of aerial photographs dating back to the early1950s.Historic England have both vertical and oblique images , but the ones that specifically cover the area of interest are vertical. Peter is studying photocopies of these to see if they show the old mines in the area.

72.6 Web Site & Communications.

Nothing to report.

72.7 Local issues
a. Wood Lane
Roy Garside had expressed concern about the traffic situation on Wood Lane and surrounding streets. We were informed that currently the Office Park are now willing to work with councillors, but Leeds City Council is not being co-operative. The last that had been heard was that the application made in respect of additional spaces was to be determined in mid-December, but as alluded to there appear to be issues that have not allowed this to occur.

The issue of existing car parks in Rothwell being used for ‘Park & Ride’ was again highlighted.

b. Bullough Lane
Peter said he would like to speak to the developers to have some input into the development but feels he would be talking from a stronger position if our Neighbourhood Plan was in place.

c. HS2
Waiting for review.

d. FORCE update
Efforts are being made to respond to the Council’s questions about the bid for development. They have questions about finance and want evidence (expressions of interest) from prospective users and evidence of committed volunteers from the community.

72.8 New and Existing Planning Applications

a. Springhead Apartment Block etc. (2 applications): update
Plan now back to 2 houses and it looks as if the Apartment block application has been refused (Post meeting note: the application was withdrawn)

72.9 Any Other Business

No other business was recorded although it appears there may have been some activity relating to Swithens Lane.

Thanks to Sandra for bringing a cake to the meeting in recognition that it was nearly Christmas and this was the last meeting of the year!

72.10 Date and Time of Next Meeting. Monday 27th January at the Haigh Road Centre


ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No 71
Monday 18th November 2019 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.


Present Anne German, Angela Kellett, Sandra Thompson, Richard Walker, John McGrory,
John McVeigh, Peter Ellis, Cllr Stewart Golton.

71.1. Welcome, Introduction and Apologies.
Peter welcomed attendees. Apologies from Roy Garside, James O’Neill and Colin Bell.

71.2. Approval of the Notes of the previous meeting.
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be accurate record of proceedings.

71.3. Matters Arising from the previous meeting.
69.9 Peter confirmed that the item that Sandra had brought to attention was to be deleted
(i.e. relating to IT assistance)

71.4. Draft Policy Intentions Document.
a. Evidence review
The question of evidence was discussed and also gaining much greater familiarity with other Neighbourhood Plans, particularly those that have been “made”. Anne and Peter had met since the last meeting and run through the information related to greenspace and environmental issues and gaining a better understanding of the policies contained within the Core Strategy. The need is now to refine the Policy Intentions Framework and to try to make the resulting policies more bespoke in respect of the designated area.

b. Bespoke Policy Inclusions.

Some aspects of the framework that has been put together is already quite strongly targeted at the particular situation that appertains in Rothwell, but this is not the situation for all themes and more work is necessary to allow the policy statements to better reflect specific requirements . Housing is an example of this, as is low carbon neighbourhood planning and retail

c. LCC meeting

It was hoped that there would be an opportunity imminently to meet Abbie Miladinovic to further discuss the policy intentions document following on from the submission that has been made and discussions since that submission

71.5 Theme (Greenspace): specific items.
a. Haighside Wood.

Anne reported the group have held one work day since my last report in October. We cleared some more scrub. We are now waiting for the plug plants to arrive and the three Mountain Ash trees that we have ordered to arrive in November. We met with Vicky Nunns to discuss the outcome of the Coal report. In the Coal report there is a recommendation the
footpath is diverted because this is in close proximity to an old pit head. After a discussion this was agreed that there isn’t any need to do this as the area in question is well covered in bramble scrub so no access available for the public. The future management of the wood was discussed with Vicky Nunns and it was confirmed to Anne that Parks and Countryside would not have responsibility for the woodland area and that it would remain with the Housing. The outcome is the Haighside Community group will carry on managing the woodland. The idea of having two interpretation panels. One depicting what can be seen from a nature perspective and a further panel describing the History of Haighside and with particular reference to Low Shops Pit. The placing of a bench in the Wood was also discussed. Anne thanked all for being in attendance

71.6 Website and Communications.
Nothing to report.

71.7 Local Issues.
a. Wood Lane and Valley Park
This matter was discussed and particular reference was made to correspondence from both Roy Garside and Jim O’Neill**. Peter indicated that there was still great concern that little seemed to be happening to resolve the Wood Lane parking problems. Peter was able to inform Cllr Golton that an application had been submitted in respect of the Valley Park site for 187 spaces though it was less than clear if this subsumed the issue allied to extraneous parking at Wood Lane which had been said to relate to 80 new spaces. In any event the application for new spaces had been submitted in August but the Council Nature officers had identified some ecological issues and the applicant had just, in November, submitted a detailed ecological report. Cllr Golton indicated he would investigate this matter.

**The following items were mentioned at this point in the meeting, but were not strictly related to 71.7a

Jim O’Neill had also made representation about the new park and ride development and was checking some of the legal background and reiterated concerns that have been made previously about the impact of the park and ride installation on the flow of traffic on Wakefield Road (this matter was discussed in detail in July last year with highway engineers, with Councillors and also Steve Carmody (former Carlton NP Chair who is also a transport consultant) . This resulted in some lengthy explanations and additional surveys and changes to arrangements for the bus lane etc, but whether these will ameliorate the possible issues is less than clear.

Jim also mentioned in his letter that he had contacted the Forestry Commission with regard to the local land owner cutting down some trees adjacent to Haigh Beck which had been deposited in the waterway causing blockages. The FC apparently said they would write to the owner and also said the Council Environment Team should be contacted





b. Bullough Lane.

Peter will try to pursue this matter further to see if a meeting can be arranged with the developer

c. HS2
Nothing new to report.

c. FORCE Update

The group have been working on the response to the Council’s questions in respect to the draft business case submission and have been meeting regularly to try to resolve outstanding issues.

d. Possible items to bring to attention with LCC et al.
Peter had identified an issue in Springhead Park related to green corridors and bio-diversity and was intending to write to Parks and Countryside Department. With the Conservation Area in mind he was also proposing to write to BT Outreach in respect of their building on Butcher Lane, which is in a particularly dishevelled state and does nothing to enhance the Area. The meeting was content that Peter make these representations

71.8 New and Existing Planning Applications.
a. Springhead Apartment Block etc. (2 Applications)
Nothing to report. Peter had submitted a response to the planning application that reflected some of the Council’s conservation officers concerns with the schemes.

b. Tree next to 10, Carlton Green
Nothing to report.

c. Trees at “Park Lane”
Nothing to report

71.9. Any other Business.

Peter indicated that since putting together the agenda he was aware that there was response form to complete, made available from LCC entitled “Leeds Statement of Community Involvement…Have your say”. This is a precursor to the publication of a formalised statement that will be consulted upon. It asks questions about responding to applications and consultations (such as the SAP and Core Strategy Selective Review). Peter said he would respond by the return date of the 2nd December and would make particular reference to the complexity of consultation forms that were very unlikely to be something that would be able to be responded to by the general public and which in a lot of ways appear to restrict community involvement.

71.10. Date and Time of Next Meeting.
Monday 16th December at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.



ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM: STEERING COMMINTTEE MEETING No. 70 Monday 14th October at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.

Present Anne German, Angela Kellett, Martyn Broadest, Sandra Thompson, Richard Walker, Mary Fleet, Diane Chapman, Peter Ellis.

70.1 Welcome, Introduction and Apologies.
Peter welcomed attendees including Mr Martyn Broadest, Director of Housing, Connect Housing.
Apologies from John McGrory, Colin Bell and Roy Garside.

70.2 Approval of the notes of previous meeting.
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings. Except 69.9 Any other business.

70.2a Connect Housing (additional item)

Mr Broadest’s attendance had not been included within the agenda for the meeting, but his presentation was agreed to be the first item

Mr Broadest had kindly agreed, following an approach by Sandra, to speak about the work of housing associations and their activities in the context of housing developments and with reference to the Site Allocation Plan. The business is a charitable organisation and profits are ploughed back into services. Connect Housing manage a large number of properties (their web site suggest something in the order of 1820) and also offer a diverse range support services. Mr Broadest outlined that these homes were social rented homes, homes in shared ownership and could be houses or flats. Connect Housing, he stressed, were in the business of ensuring affordable rents, but in high market areas like some areas in Leeds rents must not be in excess of 20% above the target rent level

In terms of Leeds it was indicated that in the previous year the target for new homes had been exceeded, but that the target for affordable homes had not been achieved.

Mr Broadest, in highlighting the work of housing associations, indicated that on occasions the organisations had to pay more than the set down rates. He referred to formula for social rents and the “Target Rent Formula” and the importance of a housing needs assessments to properly be aware of local needs. He mentioned that a key advantage of housing associations is that they are there “for the long term” and referred to the concept of the “Lifetime Home Standard”. He said it was critical in his view that homes should be as future proof as possible so that things such as level access were incorporated into house designs. The question of space standards and associated quality issues were also discussed.

It was felt that some of the issues that Mr Broadest had brought to attention, particularly in respect of quality, design and resilience were aspects that could usefully be considered in respect of the Neighbourhood Plan and particularly the concept of the Lifetime Homes
Standard. It was clear that the Forum also needed to put more effort into better understanding space standards, energy efficiency and some of the criteria contained within the Building Regulations.

Other subjects discussed included the social need of one bedroom dwellings referred to by Angela which Mr Broadest said can be seen by some as being difficult to manage. Peter also referred to the question of the disposition on new estates of affordable accommodation and the need to have such housing properly integrated in overall development site plans. This was situation that Mr Broadest fully recognised and the stance of the volume house building organisations

Mr Broadest was not averse to being contacted in future should there be questions allied to affordable housing issues that might ultimately be referred to in the Neighbourhood Plan. The Committee thanked him for sharing his wisdom and knowledge and at this point Mr Broadest left the meeting.

70.3 Matters Arising from the Previous Meeting
Re: 69.9. Any other business.
The minutes contained a statement (last paragraph) relating to the need to try to secure some additional IT knowledge. This was not considered a correct interpretation of events and should therefore be omitted. Action: This to be deleted.

Re: 69.9 Discussion on whether the members should meet on the 3rd Monday in the month. Angela said that she had heard back that the 3rd Monday is free at the Haigh Road Community Centre. It was therefore agreed unanimously that the dates of future meetings be revised to reflect this (in an effort to obviate the regular conflicts with other meetings that have occurred in the past).


70.4. Draft Policy Intentions Document.

Peter confirmed that he had sent a mark-up of the draft policy intentions document to Abbie Miladinovic, but that in doing further work on the document it was clear that there was some overlapping of some of the information particularly in respect of the various housing policy statements. In the meantime he suggested that the committee spent time obtaining a better understanding of the evidence criteria contained within the document and in particular some of the policies in the Core Strategy and how they support the policies that the Forum is configuring.

70.5 Theme (Greenspace): specific items.
A Haighside Wood.

Anne said she would like to bring everyone up to date with news about the Wood.
.
We have completed scrub clearance on 3 work days since the end of September. Bulbs have been planted in the grassland and the woodland along with bird’s foot trefoil plug plants. The bulbs and plants are all very beneficial to birds, bees and butterflies and more plants will be arriving to plant in the Spring. We hope to hold another work day on Saturday the 12th October. Anne would like to invite any members who are interested in what we are doing, to come along on one of our work days and see what a difference we have made so far to the wood.

Arrangements have been made to meet Vicky Nunns and Jodie Robertson from Leeds City Council Parks & Countryside Department, on the 17th October. It is intended that the outcome of the Coal Report published in May will be a subject of discussion. Anne will report on this at our next meeting.

70.6 Web Site and Communications.
Peter said he had not yet had time to liaise with John McGrory to try out the information Sandra has made available in respect of delegating multiple users of the Forum email (Gmail) address. He would aim to do this before the next meeting

70.7. Local Issues.
a. Bullough Lane. Peter said we should ideally get in touch with Barrett Holdings as soon as possible to arrange a meeting with them. A planning application hasn’t come in as yet for the Bullough Lane site.

b. HS2.

No further information had been forthcoming in respect of the HS2 project since the Forum had submitted a response to the recent consultation.

c. F.O.R.C.E Update.

Peter indicated that Force had received an extensive schedule of questions in respect of the submitted case and that some of these were going to be difficult to respond to, though work had started on this exercise. Work was progressing particularly allied to better identifying funding streams

70.8. New and existing planning Applications.
a. Springhead Apartment Block etc (2 applications)

Peter confirmed that he had responded to the panning application relating to the 9 unit apartment block. Apart from echoing some of the points made by the conservation officer allied to the massing of the building, he had particularly highlighted the unacceptable arrangement proposed for the Manor House frame i.e. now relegated to a feature within the grounds of the apartment block and drew particular attention to the financial arrangement between the developer and the council which would have seen the frame integrated into an extension to be located on the park side elevation of the Coach House.

b. Tree next to 10, Carlton Lane.

An application had been made in respect of tree trimming which was considered rather severe. The application was particularly poor as even the tree specimen was wrongly described.

c. Trees at “Park Lane” House.

Proposals for removal of Sycamores on the main house boundary had been submitted. Peter hoped to try to identify these and make representation if necessary

70.9 Any Other Business
Referring to item 69.9 in the previous meeting, Sandra thought it was not necessary to engage someone to help her with the web as she felt she has sufficient background IT skills and is enjoying ‘learning on the job’. However if someone who had the time and skill wanted to take over this role she would be willing to step down. Peter said he felt the web was working more than adequately and that her efforts were very much appreciated and apologised that he had misinterpreted what had been said at the last meeting. Sandra wanted to add a “print button” but needed to make adjustments to the amount of text on the existing pages and posts to make this workable.

70.10 Date and Time of Next Meeting.
Monday 18th November at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.


ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING NO 69 Monday 9th September 2019 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.


Present Anne German, Sandra Thompson, John McGrory, Richard Walker, Mary Fleet, Peter Ellis. Angela Kellet.


69.1 Welcome, Introduction and Apologies
Apologies from Colin Bell, Roy Garside, Diane Chapman, Carmel Hall.


69.2 Approval of the notes of previous meeting
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.


69.3 Matters Arising from Previous Minutes.
Any matters will be covered during the meeting.


69.4 Draft Policy Intentions Document.

The meeting reviewed the latest version of the draft policy intentions document and made some modifications. It was decided try and submit the document as soon as was possible. Peter said he needed to spend a bit more time on certain items prior to doing this (primarily car parking, public realm schemes and retail). Possible housing policies were still slightly confused and overlapping and perhaps needed a degree of rationalisation.


69.5 Theme (Greenspace): specific items
a. Haighside Wood.
a. Anne reported that the group hasn’t had a work day yet, but one is organised to take place on Saturday 14th September at 10am. The jobs we will be doing is starting to remove scrub that has grown up over the summer, prepare two strips of grassland ready for planting wild Daffodil and Snakes Head Fritillaria bulbs. Also Anne has collected some Yellow Rattle seed but the grassland has to be prepared by scarifying so that soil is revealed before we can sow the seeds. So we hope for a fine day so we can completed these jobs.


69.6 Website and Communications
Sandra asked if Peter had any progress accessing the Forum’s e mail address. He had to admit that despite trying, he had not yet made any progress on this.



69.7 Local Issues

a.Bullough Lane.
Nothing more had been heard on this application, but it was hoped there might be some possibility of contacting the developer for further discussion of the proposals 

b. HS2

Peter indicated that he had managed to respond to the HS2 consultation document and reviewed this with attendees. The key issues included were the proximity of the portal to Woodlesford and the impact on the Rothwell Country Park and the level of environmental impact. 


c. FORCE Update.

Nothing had been received from LCC since the business case for the Rothwell Council Offices had been submitted. However some efforts were to be made to further identify potential funding streams as this was where further work was needed and LCC was sure to require further detail than had presently ben provided. 


69.8 New and Existing Planning Applications

a.Springhead Apartment Block etc. ( 2 applications)

Applications for a block containing nine apartments had been made on the site next to Springhead House in Park Lane. Previously approval had been given to a planning submission to build two detached houses on this site. For some reason (assumed to be financial) a new application had been made for an apartment block. The former coach house had also previously been the subject of an approved application for conversion to a residence including an extension. This extension was to include the preserved framework from the old Rothwell manor house. In the light of the apartment building the coach house application was being resubmitted without an extension and the framework was now shown to be located as a free standing item in the garden of the apartment block. It was agreed that this was not satisfactory as the proposal for the manor house frame had been relegated to almost an afterthought and no detail was provided. The apartment block was also both large and over dominant. Peter hoped to submit a response to the apartment block application.



69.9 Any Other Business

A discussion took place as to whether the Forum should now meet every 3rd Monday in the month. To continue meeting on the 2nd Monday sometimes clashes with Oulton and Woodlesford Forum meeting and this often seems to contribute to an absence of councillors attending our meetings. It was agreed that we should review this and Peter asked Angela if she would contact the person who handles the bookings for Haigh Road, to see whether this would be possible. Peter also said he would contact David Cove/Edward Wills to see if O&W were intending to continue to have their meetings on the first (or occasionally second) Monday of the month 


Mary suggested we might get in touch with someone who has sufficient IT knowledge to provide further advice to help Sandra in respect of our website. (That was if we have sufficient funds). Peter said he does know of a person. Following discussion it what decided that it would perhaps be a good idea to do this. Peter to make enquiries.


69.10 Date and Time of Next Meeting.

Monday 14th October at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.
 


ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No 68
Monday 12th August 2019 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.

Present Anne German, Sandra Thompson, John McGrory, Angela Kellett, John McVeigh, Richard Walker, Mary Fleet, Peter Ellis.

68.1 Welcome, Introduction and Apologies
Apologies from Colin Bell, Roy Garside, Ruth Webster.

68.2 Approval of the Notes of Previous Meeting.
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

68.3. Matter Arising from Previous Meeting.
Any matters will be covered during the meeting.

68.4 Neighbourhood Plan
a. Policy Intentions workshop review (continued)

Members continued to review Policy Intentions draft Document and indeed much of the meeting was devoted to this task. Following the previous review sessions in respect of this document, Peter had introduced more detail into the text particularly related to possible policies and also additional aspects allied to “evidence required”. Mary made available a schedule of designated and non- designated heritage assets within the Neighbourhood Area which would inform the appropriate section of the policy relating to those assets. Peter would now try to formalise the draft document with the hope of submitting it to Abbie Miladinovic as soon as he was able.

68.5 Adopted Site Allocations Plan

Peter confirmed that the Leeds Site Allocation Plan was formally adopted in July and had copied the document to Committee members. The final document was more detailed and particularly with reference to annotation of Green Spaces.

68.6. Theme (Greenspace); specific items
a. Haighside Wood.
Anne said she hadn’t been to have a look at the wood since returning from holiday. Peter had however visited the Wood to do a butterfly survey for submission to Butterfly Conservation as part of the Big Butterfly Count. He thought the Wood looks ok with a considerable population of wild flowers (e.g. Devils Bit Scabious and Common Toadflax etc., but the main area is rather dominated by thistles). There had been a few Butterflies namely Speckled Wood, Comma, Small Tortoishell Meadow Brown, Gatekeeper and some Whites.
Anne then went on to say that she will go and have a look and see what flowers have been growing. She thought it would be a good idea to organise a work day for one day in September. Anne has some seeds to sow in the grassland in front of the Wood and would like to get some Snakes Head Fritillary bulbs to plant in the Grassland in the Autumn. Anne said she would let everyone know the date.

68.7 * Not designated due to error on Agenda

68.8 Website Communications
Anne asked whether there should be a link to the Adopted Site Allocation Plan? This was decided I would be a good idea. The Facebook response to a question included on LS26 was discussed. John also said there had been no recent response on the Forum email which had also proved difficult for Peter to access, though he was still trying to sort this out.

68.9 Local Issues
a. Bullough Lane.

Peter said Barratt Holdings haven’t submitted their planning application yet (which will be a full planning application), but hopefully it will be possible to meet up with the developers and discuss requirements allied to access, infrastructure and the question of the need for a a bio-diversity buffer zone in between the development and the Country Park.

b. H.S.2.
Peter said there hadn’t been any more developments over and above what had been made clear at the HS2 presentation and the resultant discussions with Barratts in respect of purported access to the construction compound to the east of the Rothwell Country Park. He would aim if possible to respond to the HS2 consultation on the latest modifications to the proposals for this area (closing date 6th September)

c. FORCE update
Peter said there hasn’t been any more communication since submitting the Business Case, though there was some intent to review funding initiatives.

68.10. New and Existing Planning Applications.

a. Springhead Apartment Block etc (2 applications).
Peter brought copies of a drawing of the proposals to the meeting, which identified that the old manor house frame would no longer be integrated into a new building , but would be a standalone structure in the grounds of what would now be a 9 unit apartment block( as opposed to the originally permitted two detached houses).

The extension on the coach house was also now omitted in favour of additional car parking (The extension had incorporated the frame in the previously approved planning application).

Peter would check the relative heights of the new proposals and in particular the massing of the building in the context of the adjacent vicarage development with particular reference to previous comments made by the Conservation Officer. If the heights in question appeared excessive in the context of previous proposals and therefore the vicarage development some suitable response to the Planning department would be submitted



b. Internal modifications to Long Acre. Oulton Lane.
It appeared from the explanatory document that the modifications would not have significant impact on older and important parts of the house


68.11 Any Other Business
Nothing to report.

68.12 Date and Time of Next Meeting


9th September at 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre


ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No 67
Monday 8th July 2019 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre

Present Sandra Thompson, Mary Fleet, Anne German, Ruth Webster, Roy Garside, Craig Townsend, Miranda Foster, John McGrory, Peter Ellis, Colin Bell, Carmel Harrison.

67.1 Welcome, Introduction and Apologies.
Apologies. Richard Walker, Cllr Diane Chapman, Angela Kellett.

67.2. Approval of the Notes of the Previous Meeting.
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

67.3 Matters Arising from the Previous Meeting.
Any matters will be covered during the meeting.

67.4. Bullough Lane HJG2-175, The Country Park and HS2.
Peter thanked everyone for coming to the meeting, He indicated that Barrett Homes are planning to build 220 homes on the Bullough Lane site, HG2-175, and will be holding a Public Consultation at Blackburn Hall on Tuesday 9th July at 3pm – 7pm. Peter took the members through the present HS2 map and how the proposed access road will run along the boundary with the Country Park through the Bullough Lane site ( this information had been confirmed with representatives at the recent HS2 meeting at the Oulton Institute). The proposed date for starting this access road will be from 2022-2023. Peter has written to Martin Elliott to ask him to clarify this situation. 

Carmel Harrison said she had been in a meeting with Barratt Homes earlier in the evening and confirmed they are quite advanced with their design. Carmel said that she understood Barratt Homes will submit their planning application once the SAP has been adopted by LCC. Carmel also said the development is to be divided into two areas. If the planning application goes through without any problems then Barrett could be ready to build in 2020.

67.5 Neighbourhood Plans
a. Policy Intentions workshop review part 1.
Peter took the members through Ian MacKay’s Policy Document Report and then the results of the Questionnaire, the Pie-Charts and the results of the S.W.O.T. Analysis from the Public Engagement evenings. The theme of Green Spaces and Environment was looked at first by way of an example. Peter indicated that there a considerable number of greenspaces identified in the SAP for Rothwell but there were some omissions. Peter had used “Google Earth” to quickly survey the Neighbourhood Area and for example the greens at Spibey Crescent and Orchard Way were some possible candidates to add to Swithens Plantation and Haighside Wood which had been identified previously. Anne also suggested the playing fields on the Manor Estate and said she would go out and take photographs of these areas. The ethics of what might constitute a greenspace were debated in the light of comments made by Ian Mackay on the subject of grass verges and the need to make sensible inclusions.

Peter then asked all members would they please choose a theme and start gathering evidence and then we can start on the Policies and Objective building. Anne felt that she would like to consider
Green Spaces and Environment and Mary would give the heritage issues some thought. Peter then suggested that we need to have an extra meeting to have a look at how far we have got and suggested Monday the 15th August at 7pm. Peter said he would enquire as to whether the Wesley Room at the Methodist Chapel is available.

In summary the Committee must try and resolve the content of the Policy Intentions document as soon as possible to allow progress on the overall initiative to be made.

67.6 Any other Business
One of the usual standing items was included under any other business i.e.:

Website and Communications.
Sandra had posted a question on the LS26 Facebook page to test response, asking what type of housing is wanted on the areas designated in the SAP. There had been no responses by e mail to the Forum, but responses had been left on the LS26 Facebook page. In response to questions about where the areas were Sandra posted diagrams and figures supplied by Peter. Responses on Facebook were a) how many houses were Council or Private and where that information could be found, and b) concerns about infrastructure.

After posting the housing questions for a second time and providing links to the Rothwell Character Area documents on our Blog there had been an increase in traffic to our Blog looking at the SAP information page – 165 views on the 8th July.

67.7 Date and Time of Next Meeting.
12th August at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.


Draft notes for meeting no. 66
ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No 66

Monday 10th June 2019 at 7.00pm held at Haigh Road Community Centre

Present: Sandra Thompson, Colin Bell, Mary Fleet, Peter Ellis.

66.1 Welcome Introduction and Apologies
Apologies: Roy Garside, Richard Walker, John McVeigh, John McGrory, Angela Kellett, Anne German, Carmel Harrison.

66.2 Approval of Notes of the Previous Meeting
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

66.3 Matters Arising from the Previous Meeting.
Any matters arising will be covered during the meeting.

66.4 Neighbourhood Plan
a. Policy intentions workshop feedback and actions.
Agreement that the workshop had been very useful and provided valuable guidance.

As many members of the Forum were unavailable for this current meeting another session will be arranged to cover Policy etc. Possibly within two weeks of our next Forum meeting as time is getting short and we need to stay on course. When people are back a more comprehensive and inclusive discussion can be had.

Colin took note and said that with the new housing coming up we need the Neighbourhood Plan to be in place beforehand.

b. Other things we can be progressing in parallel
Gathering evidence required to underpin sections of the plan.

Interest was expressed in aspirational aspects discussed at the workshop which can be included in the Plan e.g. ways in which C.I.L. could be used to enhance Rothwell. The NP could include aspirational policies / guidance for
infrastructure or include projects. Aspirational policies are not included in the assessment procedure. However it was agreed that their inclusion is useful and Peter referred to the Horsforth document which related CIL and certain non-planning initiatives.

Search for and identify green spaces.

Consideration might be given to aspects related to Climate Change which is something that has not presently been specifically addressed.

Traders and local businesses need to be canvassed for opinions. Mary F. had tried to arrange time to speak at Traders Alliance, but it was not easy to set up.

Contact local businesses - Carmel H. has sent Peter information about traders and businesses in a spreadsheet for FORCE. – maybe this might be of assistance.

Peter might talk to local solicitors as he has an imminent appointment.

66.5 Leeds Core Strategy Main Modifications consultations
Peter gave brief update on his proposed response in respect of the Core Strategy Main Modifications consultation which has to be sent in by 28th June. Specifically to Climate Change – As UK has now committed legally to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050 and the present modification still refers to 80% reduction in emissions compared to 1990 levels. Peter will send to Forum members for comment.

66.6 Forum Membership Issues
a. GDPR
Peter will go through the list of contacts and ascertain who wants to give consent to continue to receive information from the Forum by keeping their contact information on our list.

b. AGM
Plan to hold an A.G.M. to be consolidated at next meeting. Decide action to arrange venue and publicise event, write to interested parties and see who attends.

66.7 Theme (Greenspace) specific items.
a. Haighside Wood
Peter has been informed that working on Haighside Wood needs indemnity insurance and not just public liability. This probably is not the case, so Peter is writing to T. Charles to query.

As Anne was not present, Sandra read the comments Anne had provided in respect of the Coal Report on Haighside Wood. Précis as follows. ‘Anne contacted Tony Charles, Housing, to ask if he had received a copy of the report. He had and the report is 60 pages long so it will take him, along with Vicky Nunns, Parks & Countrysides, some time to go through it. Tony said as soon as this is done he will contact Anne to let her know whether Haighside Wood can be passed over to the management of Parks & Countrysides or whether remedial work has to be carried out.’

Anne may hold another Wood work day one Saturday towards end of June to keep the bramble scrub down and survey for flowers and wildlife.

66.8 Web Site & Communications.
Sandra will post on LS26 Facebook to ask for opinions about housing in Rothwell as outlined in the S.A.P. What type of housing is wanted seemed
like a key question to test responses. The Forum email address will be given for responses.

66.9 Local Issues.a.Wood Lane Parking (update)
Letter received by local residents signed by Liberal Democrat Councillors (C. Harrison, S. Golton, D Chapman), an update of the campaign for more street parking on Leeds Valley office park. As an alternative to this the office park presented them with a scheme whereby they will be able to deliver an extra 80 car parking spaces for office workers on currently designated parking zones. This to be submitted as a planning application.

b. Council Offices/F.O.R.C.E.
The business case. Progress has been made. Chasing building survey and capital costs. This document is not far off completion and needs to be submitted in the next couple of weeks. Decisions to be made on whether to be a charity or a CIC, which has to pay tax.

c. HS2
Revision of Route. Change to height of the route for 8km on the approach into Leeds so the line runs on a viaduct. Still go under Woodlesford then on stilts to Leeds.

Peter will write a response, which if we agree can be from the Forum.

66.10 New and Existing Planning Applications
Nothing to report.

66.11 Any Other Business
No further business was discussed

66.12 Date and Time of Next Meeting.
8th July at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.


Draft notes for meeting no. 65
ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No 65
Monday 13th May 2019 at 7.00pm held at the Community Room, Royds Court. 

Present Anne German, Mary Fleet, Diane Chapman, Sandra Thompson, Angela Kellett, John McGrory, Peter Ellis, Colin Bell, Stewart Golton, Abbie Miladinovic LCC, Ian McKay LCC.

65.1 Welcome Introduction and Apologies
Apologies: Roy Garside, Richard Walker

65.2 Approval of Notes of the Previous Meeting
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

65.3 Matters Arising from the Previous Meeting.

64.5 (b) There still hasn’t been any clarity when the final version of the SAP will be completed but it looks like it will now be autumn not summer?. The Core Strategy Main Modifications consultation should be implemented shortly (date not known)

65.5 Neighbourhood Plan
a. Public Engagement event feedback
Peter said that the Public Engagement day at Blackburn Hall was very successful we accrued a lot of constructive comments. Peter and Anne also had a stall in the Chapel Hall at The May Day Fair which was also successful. The comments we received from both events will be help to contribute to into the Policy Document which is the next stage in the plan.

b. Policy Intentions documentation (LCC)
Peter handed this part of the meeting to Ian and Abbie.
Abbie said we now should look at all of the information we have collated from all of our Public Engagements and ask ourselves do we have enough information to form a Policy Document. Abbie suggested the next step is to hold a workshop with all of the members who are involved in forming the plan. Ian agreed a workshop is the next step in forming the plan we shall aim to arrange a day as soon as possible and sometime in June would be preferable. Ian will facilitate the workshop. Ian said the information that comes from the workshop will form the basis for the policy intentions document and following the workshop and resulting assessment by Forum members he will then assist in putting together the document
Ian said when the document has been formulated and agreed should hold another public engagement day to confirm whether we are on the right track. Feedback is essential to a successful plan. Ian also said it is essential we have the right information on our website i.e. the Policy intentions document in order that the people who attend will be able to go away and read the information in more detail.
Sandra asked if it would be appropriate to put this information on the Leeds 26 Facebook page. We will get some very good comments but also not good ones. Use of a moderator was mentioned?. It was agreed this would be a good idea because we require comments from a good cross-section of the people of Rothwell and need to encourage people in a debate. Ian suggested that if all of that goes well and we manage to configure a Policy Intentions Document we could have a draft Plan for consultation by the beginning of 2020. Ian said we have to balance two things, what people want
and what the plan can actually do. We won’t be able to please everybody. The main things is for the plan to focus on priorities, “think quality not quantity”. Also concentrate on what we can influence and not what we can’t.
Peter thanked Ian for the advice he had given and said we would aim to identify a date for the workshop as soon as possible.

c. Plan Timetable Review
Reference was again made to the prospective Neighbourhood Plan time-table and the fact that the policy intention information was a key starting point. However the rest of the plan was not discussed in detail

d. Collation of information from engagement events.
Peter said he had already collated most of the information received from all of the Public Engagements. He had only one outstanding event to record and would have these ready before the workshop.

65.5 Forum Membership GDPR etc.
Peter informed the members that we did get 10 people showing interest in the Forum from our public engagement day at Blackburn Hall. We have their e mail addresses. Peter asked the members if they have any views of how to contact people and ask them if they would still like to be involved with the Forum because he would like to get more people on board. The consensus of opinion was Peter would write to the people concerned.

65.6 Theme (Greenspace) specific item.
a. Haighside Wood
Anne asked Cllr Golton whether he would contact the housing department and find out whether the Haighside Wood Coal Board report has been finalised and been signed off by management. Cllr Golton said he would when Anne gives him whom to contact.

b. Public Rights of Way.
Nothing to report.

65.7 Web Site & Communications.
This need to ensure policy intentions documentation has a prominent place on the web site was mentioned earlier in the meeting

65.8 Local Issues.
a. Wood Lane Parking (update)
Cllr Golton hasn’t had anything in reply to his last communication with Management of Valley Park.

b. Council Offices.
Peter said this an ongoing situation. Peter confirmed that more progress was being made on the business case and that the building survey was to progress shortly. The aim was to complete the document in June

c. HS2
There is a report expected to come out at the end of May on the revision of the route. A public consultation (probably the last one) will take place in respect of this new information.

65.9. New and Existing Planning Applications
Nothing to report.

65.10. Any Other Business
No further business was discussed

Date and Time of Next Meeting.
10th June at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.



notes for meeting no. 64
ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING NO 64
Monday 8th April 2019 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.

Present. Anne German, Sandra Thompson, Angela Kellett, John McGrory, Mary Fleet,
Peter Ellis, Cllr. Carmel Harrison, Colin Bell, Richard Walker. 

64.1 Welcome, Introductions and Apologies
Apologies: Roy Garside, Cllr. Stewart Golton.

64.2 Approval of the Notes of the Previous Meeting
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

64.3 Matters Arising from the Previous Meeting.
Any matters to be dealt with in the meeting.

64.4 Neighbourhood Plan
a. Actions/Outcomes resulting public: engagement set up meeting.
Earlier that day a “set up” meeting was convened at the Catholic Church Hall (organised with thanks to John McGrory) where the intent was to put together the display boards for use at the engagement event on the 13th April. Abbie, Ellie and Jessica were present as were John, Anne and Sandra. It proved to be a complex initiative, but the general layout was agreed and Peter agreed to take the boards away and to complete the exercise.

b. Engagement Strategy and Organisation Meetings.
Peter attended a Public Engagement meeting at Rothwell Primary school and 10 parents were present. This went very well and he received some good constructive feedback.

c. Public Engagement Event

The Engagement event was to take place at the Blackburn Hall Supper Club Room the following Saturday (13th April) and apart from the aforementioned display boards the intent was to have a number of tables each representing an aspect of the SWOT analysis , together with a general information table and a refreshments table (which Anne and husband Rod were kindly organising).Each table in respect of the SWOT would have a large piece of paper and it was decided to use “Post its” for the public to put forward their comments. The hall was booked from 9.00am to Noon, so there would be an hour to set up before the event started at 10.00am. The intent was also for A5 leaflets to be printed and Peter was organising this with Hawkridge Printers. A modified and more suitable leaflet design was suggested and Peter agreed after some discussion to modify the original design accordingly

d. Timescales and Policy Intentions documentation (LCC)

Peter again referred to the document that LCC had put together initially for Carlton Forum and the initial steps contained therein were discussed. It is hoped that more detail can be looked at during the next meeting in May


e.Small Grant Application and expenditure

Peter indicated that the cash in the bank had been in the order of £520, but that he had now purchased two display boards at a cost of £79 each and also there would be a cost for the printing of leaflets and Anne would have some expenses related to refreshments

f. Other prospective NP actions i.e. Policy Intention development.

This was really an incorrect item on the Agenda, having been already referred to in 64.4d

64.5. Information from Neighbourhood Planning “Conference” (26.3.19)

Peter had a attended a Neighbourhood Planning update at Merrion House in Leeds on the evening of the 26th March and the following topics were presented.

a.Neighbourhood Planning in Leeds – status.

There was an explanation as to how the latest situation had been arrived at an the changes in terms of housing targets for Leeds etc. (70k to 52 k) and the hope that the 5 year land target would then be in a much more healthy position. (Comment: Not that this prediction had proved to be of much assistance in respect of the Strawberry Fields Appeal!)

b. SAP and CSSR (Inc. new Main Modifications consultation)

As with the SAP the Core Strategy Selective Review would now following Inspectors comments be subject to Main Modifications that would need to be publicly consulted upon, the period of consultation being 6 weeks. The Site Allocation Plan is expected to be adopted in “Summer 2019”

c. Community Infrastructure Levy

A very informative talk was given in respect of the CIL and a copy of this is to be sent to all attendees. One aspect that was brought to attention by Peter related to the impact of the Neighbourhood Development Plan on the basis of expenditure of those funds, particularly in an Area where there is a Forum as opposed to a Parish Council. It was clear from the answers provided that the Plan should to some extent dictate the use of those funds bearing in mind that it is supposed to reflect the requirements and aspirations of the Community. The concern was that perhaps this might not be fully taken on board by those controlling the funds i.e. the HCMA committees.

d. Benefits of using LCC Public Access system.
There was also a presentation in respect of making comments allied to planning applications using the public access system and in particular some of methods of searching for applications within defined areas and auto notification. Peter has used this system on many occasions, but felt that he had not been fully aware of the extent of search provision.


64.6. Theme (Greenspace): specific items
a.Haighside Wood
Anne said the group held 2 work days in March. On the 2nd March they planted a few plants in the grassy area and just cleared scrub around that area. The second work day was held on the 16th March. Rod helped Peter plant Wild Cherry and Bird Cherry Trees, wild roses and Blackthorn hedging. On inspecting the nest boxes Anne & Rod found Blue Tits flying out from two nest boxes. Hopefully they have decided to take up residence. Another work day has been arranged for Saturday 27th April when the group will be planting spring flowers and taking part in a community picnic.

Anne and Rod had planted 20 Primrose plants at the entrance to the wood.. Anne also contacted Tony Charles, Housing, asking whether the proposed mining survey of the wood had been completed. Tony said yes it had but the survey was now waiting to be signed off and when that has been completed we will all get a copy. Anne also asked Tony whether Vicky Nunns had contacted him re: erecting a seat in the wood. Tony said “No she hadn’t”. Anne will get back in touch with Vicky.

b. Public Rights of Way.
Nothing to report.

64.7 Web Site & Communications.
Sandra said she had sent an invitation to Peter to be an Administrator on our Website. Peter had received this.

64.8 Local Issues
a. Wood Lane Parking.
Stewart Golton said he has written to the land owner of the Business park.. Stewart has given the land owner until Friday April 12th to respond to the parking issue and the impact on Wood lane. Depending what the answer is, Stewart will look at some kind of enforcement action.

b. Council Offices/F.O.R.C.E.
Peter outlined the latest situation. A survey of the building is to take place and back log and capital costs are to be established. The group have been working on the revenue implication and discussing funding sources etc. It is still hoped that the business case submission can be completed by June, though this has proved to be difficult work.

c. Strawberry Fields Appeal Outcome.
Peter said the Inspector had over ruled LCC and the development 129 properties go ahead. Ian McKay will be attending a meeting at Carlton on Wednesday 10th April to discuss whether Carlton should carry on with its Neighbourhood Plan.

c. CCG Survey (Urgent Treatment Centres)
It was indicated that the 15th April was the last date for submissions in respect of the future provision of urgent care. Any individuals could respond and Peter hoped to do so on behalf of the Forum

64.9. New and Existing Planning Applications.
Sandra mentioned the planning application for the new Barbers shop in Commercial street. Sandra said some people had remarked on the pictures that surround the window – is this allowed? Peter said he didn’t know of an application, but he would aim to write to the council and ask them if bolting signs to the old stone structure was in keeping with the conservation status of Commercial Street

64.10. Any Other Business.

64.11 Date and Time of Next Meeting
13th May, at 7.00pm. ROYDS COURT Community Centre.

Draft notes for meeting no. 63
ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No 63
Monday 11th March 2019 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre

Present: Peter Ellis, Mary Fleet, Angela Kellett, John McGrory, Richard Walker, Colin Bell, Sandra Thompson

63.1 Welcome, Introductions and Apologies.
Apologies: Anne German, Roy Garside, John McVeigh

63.2 Approval of the Notes of the Previous Meeting.
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

63.3 Matters Arising from the Previous Meeting.
Any matters to be dealt with in the meeting.

63.4 Neighbourhood Plan
a. Actions/outcomes resulting from meeting (11/3) with Abbie, Ellie and Jessica. (LCC). Discussion at the above meeting related to the Public Engagement Session in April. Peter presented the text he had prepared for submission to Rothwell Record and lots of photographs he had relating to our area. Abbie, Ellie and Jessica presented the sample notices they had prepared to be displayed in public spaces and on social media including our Blog to advertise the Public Engagement event. There were two notices which would be delivered at appropriate times in the run up to the event. LCC will help with the printing of some of the display materials including posters, flyers and leaflets to distribute. Some changes were discussed and implemented and the final drafts Peter brought to this Forum meeting.

b. Engagement Strategy and Organisation Meetings.
Peter explained to us his vision of how the tables and themes would be presented at the event. Display boards will be purchased from funds to show photographs, posters and maps etc. Possibly each table will have a theme and a prompt sheet and a separate table will hold leaflets including from other voluntary organisations from Rothwell to emphasise a cohesive community. F.O.R.C.E. will be prominently acknowledged as highly relevant to the Neighbourhood Plan. 2/3 copies of the Character Assessment will be displayed.

It was hoped to use the Haigh Road Centre as a space to mock up the display to iron out any problems before the event. Angela will find out if it is available for the day of our next meeting before our start at 7.00p.m. Alternatively a couple of other venues were suggested.

After discussion it was agreed that “post it notes” might be a useful additional aid to record responses.

The decision had been made that no tea would be provided at the event but since rescinded as Peter informed us that Rod German has volunteered to take this in hand.

Mary F. was asked if she would be able to take some publicity flyers to local businesses and shops. Although Mary had recently undertaken a similar venture she said she would see what she could do.

Peter reported that he had undertaken engagement with the Methodist Chapel, and John McGrory has arranged to meet with Rothwell Primary School, Carlton Lane on 29th March.

d. Timescales and Policy Intention documentation (L.C.C).
Peter informed us there is an online proforma to assist with the production of this documentation.

e. Small Grant Application.
The Forum has been successful in obtaining a grant of £480.00

f. Peter emphasised there are aspects of the plan that are peripheral which could be progressed in parallel.

63.5 Site Allocation Plan: Main Modifications.
Peter has submitted a response to the Site Allocation Plan Main Modifications process. Highlighted the issue relating to the Bullough Lane site and the weakening of terms of a Biodiversity boundary between the potential development site and Rothwell Country Park.

A response to the problems of parking on Wood Lane and surrounding streets by suggesting the infrastructure plans did not take account of transient and short term problems affecting the area.

63.6 Theme (Greenspace): specific items.
a. Haighside Wood.
Sandra read out Anne’s report in her absence.
“Anne got in touch with Vicky Nunns on the 19th February on her return from holiday. Anne asked Vicky whether she had contacted Tony Charles, Housing for an update on the proposed survey into the mine shafts in Haighside Wood.

Anne put in the email that on our work day on the 18th February we came across a brick structure surrounded by sunken ground in among Brambles, would this be another shaft? In Vicky's answer on the 21st February Vicky said she had passed this information back to the Geotechnical Team. Vicky was advised "they do not think this structure is a mine shaft but they will investigate this as part of the survey." Vicky also said she had not had the opportunity to speak to Tony Charles but would do so in due course and get back to me with an update.

Anne also had asked for the finger post to be replaced, a metal seat to be placed in the wood, and some money for plants. Vicky said she would liaise with Jodie re plants. Vicky said the request to place a seat in the wood has to go through Tony Charles, Housing.

The group held two work days on the 18th February and 12nd March. A lot more scrub was removed from a previously opened footpath. The wood is looking lovely at the moment with previously planted bulbs now flowering and the wood is full of bird song. Anne asked Sandra to put up to date photographs on to the website and Facebook pages. Sandra has done this.”

Peter added that they had planted plants grown by Anne, and the Aconites and Snowdrops were doing well. He suggested a litter pick and shifting some of the old metal fences. He will try to organise their removal. Two more brick structures were found at the last session in the wood.

Twenty-three tree whips for the wood have been purchased by Peter.



63.7 Website & Communications.
Abbie, Jessica and Ellie have access as administrators on the website and Peter requested that Sandra arrange administrator access for himself. This she will do.

63.8 Local Issues
a. Wood Lane Parking (update)
Attendees had no further information. Peter will write to councillors to find out what the current position is, dependent on what they have already published in the Record or online.

b. Council Offices/F.O.R.C.E.
Peter is in touch with the surveyors – fee bid to be agreed by body concerned.
Building Survey plus capital costs for upgrading. Peter to specify quality of upgrade and design for each room. Hoping the cost for survey will be within £7,000.

Current unconfirmed plan will have Band, Police and café on the ground floor with rentable and events space on the first floor.

Income and expenditure to be discussed at future F.O.R.C.E. management meetings.

c. Strawberry Fields.
The government inspector has overturned the council's decision to refuse planning permission to build 129 houses. May be something to report about further LCC action within a week or two.

d. CCG Survey (Urgent Treatment Centres).
Paperwork associated with this survey does not make clear where the fifth centre is to be created at Seacroft for East Leeds. Peter will circulate this survey to us to fill in.

63.9 New and Existing Planning Applications.
Nothing new to report.

63.10 Any Other Business
None

63.11 Date and Time of Next Meeting.
8th April, at 7.00p.m. Haigh Road Community Centre

Notes for meeting no. 62
ROTHWELL NEIGBOURHOOD FORUM: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No 62
Monday 11th February 2019 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre


Present Anne German, Peter Ellis, Mary Fleet, Angela Kellett, John McGrory, Richard Walker Cllr. Golton, Dr.Ruth Gelletlie (Visiting Speaker), Colin Bell.

62.1 Welcome, Introductions and Apologies.
Apologies: Karen Bruce, Roy Garside, Sandra Thompson, John McVeigh.

62.2 Approval of the Notes of the Previous Meeting.
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

62.3 Matters Arising from the Previous Meeting.
Any matters to be dealt with in the meeting.

62.4 Presentation by Ruth Gelletlie (Roundhay Environmental Action Project) – Disappearing Front Gardens.
Ruth provided the Forum with a PowerPoint presentation relating to the loss of front gardens nationally and locally and considered some of the ways the matter might be addressed in the future including gardens that can accommodate parking, but crucially are still gardens. The impacts relating to the character of towns, the loss of wildlife habitat, impacts on drainage and connectivity for wildlife were all issues that were brought to attention and the statistics that reveal 25% of front gardens have been paved over was sobering. In addition planning requirements in respect of such impermeable surfaces and the lack of awareness of this issue by the public (and even some planning officers) were discussed. Inevitably there was much discussion relating to car parking.

Peter thanked Ruth for attending and certainly hoped this issue could be introduced within the Neighbourhood Plan in relation to design criteria requirements.

62.5 Neighbourhood Plan
a. Actions/outcomes resulting from meeting (4/2) with Abbie, Ellie and Jessica. (LCC). Much of the discussion related to the Public Engagement Session in April and issues discussed related to leaflets, displays, logos etc. In addition the
social media elements were discussed and these will be outlined at the next meeting

b. Engagement Strategy and Organisation Meetings.
John McGrory said that he had e-mailed St Mary’s Parent and Teachers group. He had received an answer saying it would be best if he approached the school direct. John also said if we wanted to contact Victoria School for their input then he would get in touch with the Head of the school. The members agreed to this.

Peter indicated that he would be canvassing opinion from the Methodist Church in Rothwell. He also hoped to put together some leaflets to distribute to businesses to gauge their opinions as to the strengths, weaknesses, aspirations and concerns etc. allied to Rothwell

c. Public Engagement Event.
Peter said that we had finally settled on a date for this. That will be held in the Supper Room, Blackburn Hall on Saturday 13th April at 10.00am to 12.30pm.

d. Timescales and Policy Intention documentation (L.C.C)
Nothing to report on this. Once the engagement meetings have concluded a key initial task will be to author policy intentions documents. Peter as usual indicated that there are aspects of the plan that are peripheral which could be progressed.

e. Small Grant Application.

The small grant application for approx. £480 looks to have been accepted. There is just some confirmation paperwork to deal with. Renewing insurance for work at Haighside Wood and insurance for public events will be the first call on these funds.

62.6 Site Allocation Plan: Main Modifications

Peter hoped to respond to the Site Allocation Plan Main Modifications process and highlighted one issue relating to the Bullough Lane site and the weakening of the text in terms of a Biodiversity boundary between the potential development site and Rothwell Country Park. The closing date for submissions was in early March (4th). It was agreed that a response in respect of this issue was pertinent.




62.7 Theme (Greenspace): specific items.
a. Haighside Wood.
Anne reported that she had been in touch with Tony Charles, Investment Strategy Manager Housing back on the 8th January asking him if he could let us know whether he had met his manager in respect of a discussion on handing over Haighside Wood to the Parks & Countryside Dept. (L.C.C.).

In respect of the latest report on the mines that are present in the wood, Mr Charles ha indicated he had just received an e mail from a Hollie Warman M.Geol FGS. This lady is a Geotechnical Graduate Engineer who works in the Geotechnical Section, L.C.C. This department investigates the mines in the Leeds area. What they do know is that there are 5 mines within the wood, but following an investigation by her team it has not been possible to locate where these mines are, or if they have been treated to make them safe.

A Coal Authority report and full archive check would be required for this. It would seem there will be a cost to carry out this investigation which will be £400. Anne said she had been in touch with Mr Charles and confirmed our group have no funds and would not be able to finance this investigation, following an erroneous suggestion that the Forum should do this. Anne then contacted Cllr Golton and asked him if he would look into this matter on our behalf. He finally replied after our last forum meeting in January to say our Haighside Group would not be asked to fund this Coal Authority investigation.

Anne said we had 2 more work day’s planned. One on the 21st January when we continued to clear scrub and the 2nd February when we installed 6 Nest boxes and 3 Bat boxes.

b. Public Rights of Way.
Nothing to report at the moment.

62.8 Website & Communications.

This was not specifically discussed, though a strategy has been discussed and agreed with Sandra following advice and assistance from Abbie Miladinovic and student Ellie and Jessica



62.9 Local Issues

a. Wood Lane Parking (update)
Nothing further to report at the moment except that matters seem to be deteriorating. It was not possible to discuss with Cllr. Golton as he had to leave for another appointment prior to this heading. Reference was made to Cllr. Golton’s questionnaire on the subject.

b. Council Offices/F.O.R.C.E.

Work is continuing in respect of the business case and some introductory text has been authored as well as some assessments allied to revenue implications. A building survey is to be commissioned (together with budget estimate for building conversion) and it is hoped that this can be realised without resorting to competitive fee bids i.e. by use of LCC retained consultants. Peter has reworked a general layout for the ground floor which will hopefully accommodate the key long term potential tenants, while retaining the first floor (including retention of the Chamber) as event space and more ad hoc/ shorter term versatile lettable space.

c. Strawberry Fields
Peter confirmed having attended to Public Enquiry at the Civic Hall in respect of the fields and that a number of community statements had been submitted and presented to the Inspector (including by our Councillors and one by Peter). Peter had also met the Inspector on site in Carlton with Cllr. Bruce, Millers Planning consultant and LCC officers. It will be a number of weeks before there is a judgement in respect of the Enquiry.

62.10 New and Existing Planning Applications

a. Aldi
Nothing new to report in respect of “closing times” appeal.

b. 172, Wakefield Road (Industrial Unit)
The latest application had been turned down, before it was possible to make a submission.

c. Nursery, Butcher Lane – Tree Removal

Peter submitted an objection in respect of this application recognising that if the trees were diseased and had to be removed or represented a danger, the key issue was that the replacement strategy was somewhat derisory (recognising the comments in the Conservation Area Appraisal and Plan Management Plan describes the adjacent car park as barren and that more needs to be done in respect of Butcher Lane in terms of enhancement). No arboricultural report accompanied the application and this was brought to attention.

62.11. Any Other Business
Nothing to report.

62.12 Date and Time of Next Meeting.

Monday 11th March at (7.00pm) at Haigh Road Community Centre.
ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM: STEERING COMMITTEE

MEETING No 61

Monday 14th January 2019 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre

Present Anne German, Peter Ellis, Cllr Golton, Cllr Harrison, Mary Fleet¸ Sandra Thompson, John McGrory, Richard Walker.

61.1 Welcome, Introduction and Apologies
The meeting welcomed Cllr Harrison and attendees were introduced. Apologies were received from Roy Garside and Colin Bell.

61.2. Approval of the Notes from previous meeting.
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

61.3. Matters Arising from the Previous Meeting.
59.9.f. Peter said that he still not been in touch with Cllr Lewis re: Virgin Media complaints. Sandra pointed out it probably would be advisable to get in touch directly with Virgin Media as they do have a department to deal with complaints. Peter said he will look into it.

61.4 Neighbourhood Plan.
a. Actions/Outcomes resulting from meeting (17/12) with Abbie, Ellie and Jessica. (LCC)
Peter said that he and Anne had met up with Abbie and the two students on the 17th December 2018. It was very productive meeting and it was decided that Ellie & Jessica would assist the Forum in forming a more “Dynamic” web site. It was agreed by all who attended that the two students would get some ideas together and Peter, Anne and Sandra would meet up with them before the next Forum meeting.

Action: Anne will get in touch with Abbie to arrange a date.

It was hoped that the students, Jessica and Ellie, would assist the Forum with issues allied to social media. Sandra indicated that she would like to attend the meeting. Sandra also asked did we know whether our Blogger page would be destroyed or just improved. Anne said she didn’t know, but this was something we could discuss with Abbie.

Anne also said she had received an email from Abbie on the 18th December stating that Jessica and Ellie will do further work on the Rothwell overview that has been prepared to include further commentary and suggestions on how to improve the existing website and how to make best use of existing social media accounts in Rothwell (mainly the LS26 page and others as appropriate).

The Community Engagement day (to be held at the Blackburn Hall) was also discussed. Thus far there had not been any response from Carl Hinchcliffe’s department in respect of the Small Claims Funding Application that Peter had submitted some time ago or an idea about venue availability in March. Abbie said she would chase Communities for a response. Once a date had been agreed Abbie/Jessica/Ellie to do some preliminary work on preparing materials for the event (posters, information for display boards, etc;)

Abbie to arrange further copies of the Character Assessment prepared by Archie and Chris. Peter was asked to send through SWOT work done so far to assist preparation for the public engagement event. He agreed to also resend to Abbie the Vision, Objectives, AECOM report.

Peter reported that he had already sent everything to Abbie as requested with the exception of the SWOT information, but he would do this as soon as possible.

Action: SWOT information to be forwarded

b. Engagement Strategy and Organisation Meetings.
We have just completed an engagement meeting with the Scouts on Friday 11th January. Peter felt that we had now made some inroads into trying to understand views of young people in Rothwell. John McGrory reported he has contacted St Mary’s Parent and Teachers group he is waiting for an answer. There was consideration in respect of contacting the other schools in Rothwell and it was agreed we should do so if at all possible.

Action: Other schools to be contacted

c. Public Engagement Event.
Peter said we are just waiting for Carl Hinchcliffe’s department to get in touch to say we have received the funds we have applied for and some available dates for the supper room. Peter said it looks like the day will now be sometime in March or maybe April before we are ready.

Action: Contact Communities Dept.

d. Timescales and Policy Intention documentation (LCC)
This was not discussed in any detail, except to say that once the public engagement process is complete it should be possible to make progress on Policy Intentions documentation. In the meantime we should look at what tasks can be progressed in parallel, now, to save time later in the process

e. Small Grant Application
This had been referred to in 61.4a. Peter confirmed that the grant application had been successful and that he needed to sign a form to allow funds to be transferred to our account.

Action: Grant acceptance form to be signed

f. REAP Campaigns for Green Front Gardens and meeting
Peter confirmed that he had formally invited Ruth Gelletlie from the Roundhay Environmental Action Project to attend our next meeting, to talk about the increasing trend in paving over front gardens. Something that might be included within the Rothwell Neighbourhood Plan

61.5. Site Allocation Plan and Core Strategy: Latest Information
Peter said that a further statement had appeared on the Programme officer’s web site in respect of the SAP examination process, which he read out:

“The Inspectors have stated that it is not usually necessary to publish any draft versions of a schedule of Main Modifications until the Inspectors are satisfied the schedule represents only those that the Inspectors consider to be necessary for soundness. The additional work carried out by the Council to support the Council’s own conclusions about which Green Belt sites to delete and which to retain is not yet on the examination website. The Inspectors consider it should be, together with the list of sites, to ensure openness and transparency. Indeed, it would probably be necessary for it to be available to enable the Inspectors to comment on the chosen and deleted sites publicly, if necessary. The Inspectors do not envisage inviting any comments on it prior to any consultation of the Main Modifications”

Main Modifications are the subject of a consultation process and Peter would report on this at the next meeting. As yet the Main Modifications schedule does not seem to have been made available, but this must be imminent.

The Core Strategy review is being examined during February and into March. The Forum submitted its views during the Consultation period and as with the Site Allocation Plan examination, it is supposed not to be possible to bring any further matters to attention at the CSSR examination and Peter indicated that at this stage he was not proposing to attend the examination, (post meeting note: but may do so as an observer at some point).

Action: Peter to Review Main Modifications

60.6. Theme (Greenspace): specific items.
a. Haighside Wood
Anne reported the next work day is arranged for Monday the 21st January with Jodie, We will do further scrub clearance. The wood is looking really good where we have been working.

Anne said she had reported at a previous forum meeting that on investigation by Cllr Golton the woodland is found to be in the hands of the Housing section not Parks & Countryside. A site meeting was held on the 11th December at the wood with Tony Charles, Investment Strategy Officer (Housing, LCC). The meeting was attended by Vicky Nunns, Jodie Robertson, Peter, Anne and other members of Haighside Wood group. A walk-about of the wood took place so Tony Charles could have a look at the work the group carried out. After this was decided by Tony that he would go back and put a recommendation forward to his superiors that the wood be passed over to Parks & Countryside. In the meantime it would be necessary for some discussion with a Richard Barston about the safety aspects of some mine shafts that are on the land.

Anne contacted Tony Charles in early January to ask what the outcome of the meeting he had re: the mine shafts. Tony emailed Anne to say £400 is required to conduct a survey of the mines. Tony Charles is to have a meeting re the money on the 16th January. Anne contacted Cllr Golton and passed on this information and asked for his help in the matter as the group shouldn’t have to pay for this survey as the wood and its safety is considered to be wholly the responsibility of the Council. Anne is waiting for an answer

b. Public Rights of Way.
Nothing to report.

61.7 Web Site and Communications
Points Sandra raised were, who will manage this new web presence, what happens to it when Neighbourhood Plan is completed, will we keep the current Blogger site or close it down. The crux of the matter is whether we can generate a large enough social media presence to get more people to look at our web page then are currently doing so. Peter said that we would still need a web site even after the Neighbourhood Plan was completed and certainly throughout the process of producing it.

Action: These concerns to be raised at the next meeting with Abbie and the students.

61.8 Local Issues
a. Park & Ride scheme (update)
Perhaps unsurprisingly the planning application for the “Park and Ride” development had been approved. The matter was not further discussed.

b. Wood Lane Parking (update)
Little was discussed in respect of this ever worsening situation and Cllr Golton indication that he was pursuing a number of avenues in an attempt to assist in resolving of the present difficulties. More information to be provided at the next meeting.

c. Council Offices
Peter indicated that there had been a delay in the process recently and meetings needed to be put “on track” again. He was still trying to make progress on the instigation of a survey via a fee bid process, but it was difficult to make headway without funds. The Business case was in the early stages of being configured, but the capital cost information and revenue implications were areas where much of the work needed to be directed. This could not accurately be assessed however until the broad layout of the building was fully agreed. There had been difficulties in relation to the space preferred by the Police and therefore Peter was also reconsidering a layout of the ground floor that would allow occupation by the Police, The Temperance Band and a café (while at the same time reserving the Council chamber and associated rooms as event space).

d. Strawberry Fields
The Appeal (or Inquiry) was due to start on the 22nd January and the CVNF was co-ordinating statements. Peter would be one of those who would be making a statement to the Appeal Inspector. The Appeal is expected to last for 6 days and is being held at Civic Hall

e. Health Provision
A new practice provider/operator had been identified and it is understood that the result of the process is considered successful.

f. HS2
This was not discussed in any detail though the disruption caused by part closure of Methley Lane was touched on and the major impact this will have on transport routes and the surrounding areas

g. Historic Artefacts (Cheesecake Hall, Rothwell Manor House)
Nothing further to report over and above the comments made at the previous meeting. It does seem that the frame to be utilised at the development on Park Lane will be visible and that there may be some formal recognition of this. Again the manner in which this initiative has been handled was questioned, particularly the methodology adopted in terms of the making available grants. At least from a heritage aspect, it was recognised that the frame of the old Manor House was being used in Rothwell. This has not been the situation in terms of the other heritage assets allied to Beeston

61.9. New and Existing Planning Applications.
a. Aldi.
Nothing to report re: closing hours application.

b. 172, Wakefield Road (Industrial Unit)
It was agreed that Peter will object again to this development on the same basis as previously (as the latest application is almost exactly the same as the last rejected submission).

c. Nursery, Butcher lane – Tree Removal.
It was also agreed that Peter would submit an objection to this application for the removal two mature trees, on the basis of the enhancement of the Conservation Area and particularly the lack of substantial proposals in respect of replacement planting (if the trees were indeed dangerous and have to be removed because of proximity to a play area, though this should also be the subject of an arboreal report as opposed to comments by the applicant).

61.10 Any Other Business
Nothing to report.

61.11 Date and Time of Next Meeting.
Monday 11th February at (7.00pm) at Haigh Road Community Centre.
 

Notes for meeting no. 60
ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No 60
Monday 10th December 2018 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.


Present Anne German, Mary Fleet, Angela Kellett, Richard Walker, Colin Bell, Peter Ellis, Sandra Thompson.


60.1 Welcome Introduction and Apologies
Apologies were received from Sandra Thompson, Joh McVeigh, Karen Bruce, Roy Garside, Cllr Golton, Abbie Miladinovic, Ian McKay.


60.2 Approval of the Notes from Previous Meeting
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.


60.3 Matters Arising from the Previous Meeting
59.4 a. Engagement Strategy and Organisation |Meetings.
Mary said that she would let Peter and Anne know if it would be convenient to conduct a SWOT Analysis with the group on a Thursday morning after she had checked with the members. As agreed Mary did check with members and the Analysis was arranged for Thursday 22nd November at 10.30am.


59.9 f Virgin Media
Peter said he still needs to chase up Cllr Lewis but will do in the next few weeks, though he did not think this would be especially productive.


60.4 Neighbourhood Plan

a. Engagement Strategy and Organisation Meetings.
Anne and Peter attended the arranged “Rothwell In Bloom” SWOT Analysis on the morning of 22nd November. This proved to be very successful and a lot of useful feedback was acquired.

Anne, Peter and Sandra also attended the arranged Public Engagement evening at Rothwell Youth Club on 9th November to conduct a SWOT Analysis with the 11-15year old children. This was also very successful and a lot of useful feedback was acquired.

It is hoped that a further meeting can shortly be convened with the Scouts at their HQ on Haigh Road. This is likely to be early in the New Year (Most likely the 11th January)

b. Public Engagement Event.
Peter said he has sent in the completed Small Grant Application to LCC hoping we get confirmation that everything is correct and we receive the funding required so we will be able to hold the Public Engagement day in February/March. Peter has also asked for available dates on a Saturday morning when the supper room at Blackburn Hall will be free.

c. Timescales and Policy Intentions documentation (LCC)
The value of the timescales document provided by Abbie was reiterated. It is hoped that efforts can be made in respect of policy intention documentation following the outcome
and analysis of the public engagement process which iy is hoped will conclude by the end of March.

d. Small Grant Application
This has already been covered in b. Public Engagement Event.

c. REAP Campaign for Green Front Gardens and meeting.
Peter explained to members that REAP stood for Roundhay Environment Action Project.
This group is active in Roundhay and Oakwood and promotes practical, local action
to tackle the impact of Climate Change and encourages sustainable living in our communities. The name of the lady who runs the group is Ruth Gelletlie. Peter invited her to come and speak at one of our future meetings to give us the benefit of her knowledge on this subject. Ruth accepted and it has been arranged for February. There was a discussion and it was decided some of the members would complete a walk around Rothwell, at a later date, to look at the regrettable trend that is seeing large proportion of gardens becoming inert due to loss of green environment and lack of provision in new properties. It was agreed we would also take photographs for evidence. This it was agreed was subject that the proposed Plan could consider, but as with anything contained within the Plan policies evidence and research would be required to underpin statements made and the proposed discussion would hopefully assist in achieving this.


60.5 Site Allocation Plan and Core Strategy: Latest Information.

The Core Strategy Selective Review hearing were to take place in February. There was an opportunity to attend if representations need to be made.

Nothing directly related to the Site Allocation Plan examination process was apparent by reference to the Programme Officer’s website. E.g. anything about the Main Modifications to be published by the Council. Peter needed to make more effort to establish what was happening in this regard


60.6. Theme (Greenspace) specific items.
a. Haigh Side Wood.
Anne firstly explained that the Wood is owned by LCC but some years ago this land was not
placed under the management of Parks & Countryside Service because it isn’t a designated Green Space and Haigh Side would be required for future development. LCC decided some years ago to transfer the land to the Housing Management because there was also an interest in using the Wood for future housing.

Two years ago Anne and her group decided to take an interest in the Wood and in discussions with Vicky Nunns, Parks & Countryside Service Manager for Area South. It was disclosed the Wood is under the Housing Management because it would be needed for future housing needs, but she would investigate to see if they still required the land for housing. Anne went onto explain she had asked Cllr Golton in October to get in touch with Housing and explore the situation and see if they would transfer the Wood to Parks & Countryside Service.

Anne received an e mail from Cllr Golton on the 10th November saying “he had received assurances from the Asset Management and Housing Growth Team to evidence this land will not be subject to housing demands needs and will indeed be formally reaffirmed as green belt and a future site visit is to be arranged between Housing, Jodie Robertson and Vicky Nunns” with a view to transferring the Wood to P & C”. Anne further elaborated that she had received another e mail from Jodie Robertson saying “I have been verbally told that the Wood and the fields are to be removed from the SAP and retained as greenbelt but wanted confirmation in writing before I told you. Great news. I would prefer to postpone any task days until given go-ahead from Housing etc; but I will let you know as soon as I hear I can continue”.

Anne confirmed the group would still work in the wood without Jodie and would be arranging another work day in the next few weeks.

b. Public Rights of Way

Peter informed the meeting of a letter recently received from Jim O’Neill about the removal of signage no longer in existence, including the sign at the bottom of Low Shops Lane. This is something that can hopefully be rectified as a result of the discussions with Vicky Nunns et al. In addition Jim expressed his displeasure at the perceived actions of the local farm (Haighside) to impede access in respect of the Pastures.


60.7 Web Site & Communications.
Due to Sandra not being at the meeting, Anne said she had e mailed Abbie Miladinovic after the Neighbourhood Plan Conference and asked her if she would be willing to help us form a Forum Social Media Page. Anne had spoken to Abbie and she said that yes she would help along with the two Students, Jessica Cooke and Ellie Knowles who are seconded to the Neighbourhood Planning Dept. at the moment (and put a proposal forward for a Social Media site). Abbie said she would be in touch and hopefully they would be able to attend our next meeting in December to discuss the way forward.


60.8 Local Issues.
A. Park & Ride

As indicated in a previous meeting the scheme is the subject of a planning application

b. Wood Lane Parking

Nothing further to report except that matters are not improving and the number of cars parked on Wood Lane continues to be of concern as also highlighted within the previously referred to correspondence received from Jim O’Neill

c. Council Offices

Work is ongoing and efforts are now being made to try to put together a first draft of a business case. Peter indicated his main concern was to try to instigate a fee bid for survey
works, something that was proving challenging. The Christmas event at the Offices on Christmas Eve was also referred to and it was hoped that this would be a success

d. Strawberry Fields
Information allied to the appeal is expected to be available shortly

e. Health Provision.
A new Practice provider /operator had been identified and it is understood that the result of the process is considered successful

f. HS2

This was not discussed in any detail though recent concerns allied to the proposals in respect of the stock yard were referred to and the impact on the locality.

G. Historic Artefacts (Cheesecake Hall, Rothwell Manor House)
Cllr Golton had received an e mail from a Frances Adamson who lives in Beeston Leeds 11. He also sent this to Dave Cove and Peter. In this e mail she refers to a developer, named RDF, being offered a number of heritage buildings dating back to 16th/17th Century which were originally sited in Beeston/Hunslet and Oulton. These structures are to be re-located and used in private building projects primarily in one location in North Leeds.
The structures in question are from Cheesecake Hall, Oulton and 133 Carr Moor Side, Beeston. They have remained in storage for 30/40 years with no attempt being made to do anything with them. The general view was that heritage assets if reutilised should be located within the area of their origin. It is clear that local developer has been able to utilize heritage materials and access a Council grant. Not, it was thought, a very edifying state of affairs. Cllr Golton appears to be pursuing the matter and is convening a meeting


60.9 New2 and Existing Planning Applications
a. Aldi. Well this building has now been started but there hasn’t been anything more reported on the increase in closing hours Aldi had applied for.

b. 172 Wakefield Road (industrial Site)
Peter will get in touch with planning dept to ask if this latest application plan has been amended in any way. Peter will object again to this.

c. Nursery, Butcher Lane.
Peter will still aim to object on the grounds of insufficient parking places.


60.10
Any other business
Nothing to report. Peter wished attendees a Happy Christmas and New Year

60.11 Date and Time of Next Meeting.
Monday 14th January 2019 (at 7.00pm) at Haigh Road Community Centre.


Draft notes for meeting no. 59
ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No 59
Monday 12th November 2018 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.

Present Anne German, Peter Ellis, John McGrory, Colin Bell, Angela Kellett, Mary Fleet,
Richard Walker.


59.1 Welcome Introductions and Apologies
Apologies were received from Sandra Thompson, Roy Garside, Ian Mackay, Cllr Golton, Karen Bruce, Abbie Miladinovic.


59.2 Approval of the Notes of Previous Meeting
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.


59.3 Matters Arising from the Previous Meeting.
Any matters to be dealt with in the meeting.


59.4 Neighbourhood Plan
a. Engagement Strategy

b. Public Engagement Event
Peter said that the future Community Engagement day would hopefully now be arranged towards the back end of February, This has yet to be booked also this will be advertised in the February issue of the Rothwell Record and on various notice boards in Rothwell. There has been a evening arranged at Rothwell Youth Club to conduct the SWOT Analysis with the 11-15 year olds. Anne said she will check the time this will take place. Peter asked Mary if a SWOT Analysis could take place with the Rothwell in Bloom volunteers on Thursday 22nd November at 10.30pm in the rest room at Joseph Priestley College. Mary said she will check
with the members and let us know.

c. Small Grant Application
Peter said he has completed the Funding Application and will send it off hoping we get confirmation that everything is correct so we can hold the Public Community Engagement day in February.

d. Timescales and Policy Intentions documentation (LCC)

Peter had circulated a potential programme in respect of the on-going work required to author the Neighbourhood Plan. This information was as a result of a meeting held with Ian Mackay and Abbie Miladinovic in Leeds with Steve Carmody (CVNF). The document was produced in response to a requirement by Carlton Village Neighbourhood Forum. Rothwell is not as far in the process as Carlton, but once the public engagement exercises have been completed and analysed it should be possible to start to configure Policy Intentions Documents and the circulated material provides a better understanding as to how this can be instigated and from that point the likely activities and potential timescales for completion of the Plan. It was hoped that this could be considered in more detail, perhaps at the next meeting.




e. Outcomes from Neighbourhood Planning Conference.
At the Conference Anne, Angela and Sandra took part in the Community Engagement Workshop. Anne and Angela discussed with the members their opinion of how helpful the Community Engagement Workshop had been and how they were taken through the different methods of how to engage with Community Groups. Peter took part in the Low Carbon Housing Workshop and he went onto explain to the members how helpful that had been in showing how future housing can be more efficient.


59.5 Policies and Constitution
Peter had put together, using standard documents as a guide, a number of policies in respect of Equal Opportunities, Safeguarding and Code of Conduct which supplement the documentation contained within the Constitution.


59.6 Site Allocation Plan: Latest Information.
It was indicated that an Inspectors post hearing letter had been produced in respect of the SAP and this had resulted in a response from LCC and a further letter from the Inspectors and that all of this was published on the Programme Officers web site (Helen Wilson Consultancy Ltd). This documentation is rather involved, but introduces the concept of “Main Modifications” and confirms that the term “Broad Locations” is not an accepted methodology for responding to the impact of the revisions to the as yet unratified Core Strategy. As alluded to in the previous meeting, areas that were Broad Locations and Greenbelt are now designated Greenbelt. However further explanation would be necessary to clarify matters and it had been indicated that there would at some point be a session arranged by the Council in respect of this (much as there was when the original concept of Broad Locations was derived, something that Peter had attended earlier in the year)



59.7 Theme (Greenspace): Specific Items.
Anne reported there had been a very successful work day held at Haigh Side wood on the 20th October. We had 3 new volunteers join us they were very welcome. Jodie was also with us and everyone took part in planting woodland bulbs. Anne also explained the situation we have with the wood not been managed by LCC Parks & Countryside so is not recognised as a Green Space which would give it some protection against development. Vicky Nunns, out our meeting in October, the wood at some time in the past had been allocated to housing which could mean that sometime in the future the wood could be housing. Cllr Golton visited us on the last work day so Anne asked him to take the matter up behalf of the Neighbourhood Forum.

Today Anne had received an e mail from Cllr. Golton which she read out to the members. In the email Cllr. Golton stated “he had assurances from Asset Management and Housing the woodland will not be used for future housing needs and will indeed be formally reaffirmed as green belt”. He said that a site visit will be arranged as soon as possible with Vicky Nunns.



b. Public Rights of Way
Peter has to get in touch with Cllr Golton and ask him to verify the legality of existing and future public rights of way on Haigh Side, but needs to source a particular drawing which has caused delay. He hopes to do that by the next meeting.


59.8 Web Site & Communications
As Sandra wasn’t present at the meeting Anne explained to the members present she had contacted Abbie Miladinovic with a view to obtaining help in designing a Social Media page. Anne has sent the e mail to Sandra so she is aware of this, Abbie said she thought that the 2 PHD Students Jessica & Ellie, who are attached to their Department, would probably be able to help the Forum with this but Abbie would have to verify this with Ian. Abbie & Ian have said they both should be at the next meeting in December when this can be discussed.


59.9 Local Issues

a. Park & Ride Scheme (update)
Peter said there has been 47 objections to the scheme stating that it is too close to the Cemetery. Peter said he would send a supporting letter from the Forum. The members were agreeable to this.

b. Wood Lane Parking
Nothing to report.

C. Council Office/F.O.R.C.E.
Peter said things are going along well. He now has to go back into the offices and try and re-allocate space to accommodate the Police. The Inspector and Estates Manager has paid a visit.

d. Strawberry Fields
Nothing further to report

e. Health Provision Issues
Anne said she had seen an e mail sent out to us by Graham Fox on the 13th of November making the announcement who the future Health Provider in the Market Cross Surgery will be.

f. Virgin Media.
Peter said he still hadn’t had an answer from Cllr Lewis in respect of the letter he sent out some months ago.


59.10 New and Existing Planning Applications

a. Aldi
Peter said it looks like the developers have started on the site otherwise there isn’t anything else to report.

b. Springhead Park House (Further Application)
Nothing further to report

c. Carlton Lane Restaurant
Planning Dept have agreed a change of use, but nothing more to report at the moment and any provision will be subject to a planning application

d. Nursery, Butcher Lane.
Peter will write from the Forum an objection saying there isn’t enough parking as the car park opposite the said Bungalow, which is wanted for the Nursery, Is full with local people and Taxis parking on there.


59.11 Any Other Business.
Angela mentioned that Morrisons have erected an illuminated sign by the store at the roundabout on Church Street can anything be done about this. Peter said he would look into this.

Peter said he had met a lady called Ruth Gelletlie at the Neighbourhood Planning Conference. Ruth is a member of the group REAP (Gardening Group) which advocates the regrettable trend in seeing a large proportion of front gardens becoming inert due to loss of green environment and in the lack of provision in new properties, Peter wondered whether it would be beneficial in asking her to one of our meetings as this information we can used in our plan. The members thought this would be a good idea so Peter said he would contact her.


59.12 Date and time of next meeting.
Monday 10th December (at 7.00pm) at Haigh Road Community Centre.

Notes for meeting no. 58
 
ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING NO 58

Monday 8th October 2018 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.

Present Ian MacKay (LCC), Colin Bell, Anne German, John McGrory, Mary Fleet, Sandra Thompson, Angela Kellett, Peter Ellis, Richard Walker, Colin Bell, Paul Reynolds.

58.1 Welcome, Introductions and Apologies
Apologies were received from John McVeigh, Cllr Golton, Roy Garside.

58.2 Approval of the Notes of Previous meeting

The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings

58.3 Matters Arising from the Previous Meeting
Any matters will be dealt with in the meeting

58.4 Neighbourhood Plan
a. Engagement Strategy.
Peter indicated that at the previous meeting the committee had reviewed the Community Engagement Strategy document that Ian and Abbie had previously provided and in looking at the document again various points were brought to attention allied to Consultees and it was confirmed that the Forum would be attempting to ensure that views were canvassed from across the community, with reference to the stakeholder groups referred to in the document. Similarly discussion and consultation with applicable statutory bodies was also the intention of the Forum. Methods of public consultation to be adopted would include a number of the suggested methodologies including it was hoped further elements of social media. In particular it was intended that a number of targeted meetings with local organisations and businesses would be implemented. Meetings with a local youth club and church groups were likely to be early candidates in this respect.

Ian MacKay said that this document is only a guide and the contents are not set in stone. It is there to help us to think in a different way. It was agreed that the document was very helpful.

b. Engagement Workshop.
Ian then talked about one of the key aspects of the Public Engagement Workshop and conducting the S.W.O.T. Analysis and the methods of achieving effective outcomes were debated. It was again reiterated that the process was very important and that the more engagement that could be progressed with the public, the more meaningful will be the Plan when the time arrives for a referendum to be conducted and the greater chance of it being accepted.

Ian said that there is an extra resource we can use. Two Master Students, Jessica and Ellie have joined Ian’s department for one year to help with Public Engagement. They can assist us by collating a report of the analysis at the end of our public engagement workshop.

Paul Reynolds asked if there are some examples of successful Neighbourhood Plans we could look at Ian said he would try to make those available at the next meeting. It is clear that the Holbeck Plan is thought to be a good example.

c. Other Issues and Actions.
Discussion as to the likely dates etc. allied to engagement meetings was referred to at this point. It was likely that the Workshop would have to be slightly delayed due to issues allied to Public Liability Insurance and also a successful small grants application. Peter said he would procure a flipchart and flipchart pads to assist in the short term.

d. Character Assessment
Peter had circulated electronic copies of the document to attendees and once again the attendees indicated that the documents were very useful and helped to underpin some of the issues that are applicable within the Rothwell Neighbourhood Area

58.5 Site Allocation Plan: Latest Information.
There is a suggestion that the concept of “Broad Locations” is not a supported term and this was something that Ian Mackay corroborated prior to leaving the

meeting. What this really means for previously designated Broad Location areas such as Haighside is not entirely clear, but it is understood that further explanations will be forthcoming including ultimately a discussion with local organisations, in much the same manner as “Broad Locations” were introduced in the first place.

58.6 Theme (Greenspace): specific items.
a. Haigh Side Wood.
Anne reported that she had met up with Jodie Robertson a work day has been arranged for Saturday the 20th October starting at 2pm to 4pm. Jodie will be putting up posters at the entrance of the wood and at the Pastures Nature reserve as this is quite close to the wood. Anne had heard from Jodie since their meeting and Catherine, the “Bee Lady”, will be joining us and bringing some bulbs for us to plant. Anne said she has arranged a meeting with Vicky Nunns from LCC on Tuesday 16th October at Rothwell Park Café at 3pm. This is to discuss how to spend the funds we have been allocated.

b. Public Rights of Way
Nothing to report

58.7 Web Site & Communications.
Sandra has contacted by e mail, the two previous attendees who said they may be able to offer help regarding the Forum’s possible social media initiative. As yet there has been no reply. Sandra noted a mature birch tree has been felled outside the flats on Wood Lane opposite the Pasture View Road. Sandra has contacted Leeds City Council and Karen Bruce to try and find out the reason why this has been done

58.8 Local Issues
a. Park & Ride Scheme.
It seems that a planning application for the scheme has been put forward. Peter said he had not looked at this yet

b. Wood Lane Parking (update)
Collin reported that double yellow lines have been marked around the emergency entrance into St Georges. No other news about the scheme at the moment.

c. Council Offices/F.O.R.C.E.
More detailed assessments as to how the building can be utilized are being considered and there had been a further visit to the premises assess matters in a little more detail. In particular the methodology of maintaining quality event space and at the same time accommodating parties that had shown interest in the building, primarily the Police and the Rothwell Band. It seemed possible that the timescale for submission of the Business case might be extended, due to intervention by Cllr Bruce. Cllr Galton was still pursuing the Police for more information and meetings of F.O.R.C.E, were still proceeding on a weekly basis

d. Strawberry Fields Appeal
The appeal process is ongoing and this is unfortunately having some impact on the confidence of the Carlton Village NF to make the necessary progress with their plan. Hopefully matters can be resolved.

e. Health Provision Issues.
No further information at present

f. Virgin Media
Peter still hasn’t had any answer to the letter he sent to Councillor Lewis.

g. Other
Nothing to report.

58.9. New and Existing Planning Applications
a. Aldi planning condition variation.
No further information, but some suggestion that work would commence in October

b. Springhead Park House (Further application)
Nothing to report

c. Carlton Lane Restaurant
The situation in respect of this application is unclear, but it seems that the application related to change of use and that other approvals will be required

d. Nursery, Butcher Lane
This application relates to the large single storey building on the eastern side of Butcher Lane. The issue of car parking was discussed and any response will centre on this aspect.

e. Other
Nothing to report

58.10. Any Other Business
The forthcoming Neighbourhood Planning Conference to be held at the Civic Hall on the 19th October was discussed and it was hoped that there would be attendance at all the individual workshops. These related to design opportunities, low carbon neighbourhood planning and community engagement. Peter hoped that he might be able to attend, but in any event Sandra and Angela would be there on behalf of TARA and John McGrory had also booked to be in attendance

58.11 Date and Time of Next Meeting
Monday 12th November (at 7.00pm) at Haigh Road Community Centre.
 

Notes for meeting no. 57
ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM:STREERING COMMITTEE MEETING NO57
Monday 9th September 2018 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Cemtre
Present. Anne German, Peter Ellis, John McGrory, Sandra Thompson, Richard Walker, Colin Bell, John McVeigh, Angela Kellett, Deryck Thorp, Ruth Webster, Cllr Golton
57.1 Welcome Introduction and Apologies
Peter welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies from Mary Fleet, Roy Garside.
57.2 Approval of the notes of previous meeting
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings
57.3 Matters Arising from previous meeting.
Any matters will be dealt with in the meeting.
57.4 Neighbourhood Plan – Next \Steps, including:
b. Review of Public Engagement discussion (9th August) with LCC Officers
Peter handed out copies of the Communities Engagement Strategy Document and at this point he took members through each section of the Document and explained that this is a very important part of the Neighbourhood Plan.
Deryck put the idea that we maybe should think about having a stall at the May Day celebrations and The Carnival in July. This would be to make the residents aware and advertise the purpose of the Forum and why the people of Rothwell need the Neighbourhood Plan. There was agreement from everyone and agreed the matter would be dealt with at a future meeting.
b. Engagement Workshop.
Peter said Carl Hinchliffe had been in touch about holding an Engagement Day with the residents of Rothwell. Carl said he had booked the supper room at Blackburn Hall for Saturday 13th October. Peter said that he had completed the Funding Application for the materials we would require on the day but it had been returned to him asking for further information. Peter mentioned one of the items mentioned on the application was Liability Insurance. He asked did we think this would be necessary as we haven’t got this for the Forum. There was a discussion and it was decided we would have to have this when holding public engagement workshops. Anne said she would get in touch with the insurers where we already have Public Liability Insurance for working in the wood. Peter said he didn’t think he could get everything together to complete the funding application for the proposed Community Engagement meeting on the 13th October. Anne suggested we arrange a later date for the Engagement Day. Peter said he would look at all the information and decide.
Deryck said had we considered holding an Engagement meeting with the Rothwell Lions to conduct a SWOT Analysis also applying to them for funding. The relevant information was given to Peter to take forward
c. Other Issue: Plan actions in the immediate term.
There was no more to report.
57.5 Site Allocation Plan: latest information
Nothing to report at the moment.
57.6 Theme (Greenspace): specific items
a. Haigh Side Wood.
Anne reported there had been a work day held on the 18th August. A lot of scrub had been removed at the entrance to the Wood and the area where the fire had been was cleared. Hopefully now this area is clear of bramble the group could re-plant the area with wild flowers. Anne said she hoped to hold another work day this month.
b. Public Rights of Way/sign posts.
Peter still needed to forward further information to Cllr. Golton to establish the status of former railway track spaces
57.7 Web Site and Communications
Sandra referred to discussion at our last meeting about using social media to engage with the local community. Sandra asked if this was something we want and if so what will we use e.g. Facebook Twitter etc. Peter said he felt this was something that would be expected of us, and John McGrory said he would be willing to administrate Facebook if it was set up (there can be many administrators). Sandra said she would access the social media help documents on the websites recommended on the Neighbourhood Plan document produced by Ian McKay, and contact Joshua and Liam who had offered help at our previous meeting.
57.8 Local Issues
a. Park and Ride (update).
Nothing to report.
b. Wood Lane Parking.
No yellow lines for the time being. Stewart Golton has been instrumental in halting this pending further investigation.
c. Council Offices/F.O.R.C.E.
Successful open day with a Heritage theme held at the Pavilion Café. Lots of favourable responses from visitors to the display. Themed “goody bags”were given out and also taken to Commercial Street and engage with shoppers to advertise the purpose of FORCE.
FORCE is hoping to get an extension to the time given by LCC to produce the business plan. Karen Bruce to pursue this on behalf of FORCE as there has been a precedent of longer periods of time being allotted to other organisations to allow submissions to be made.
State of building. The roof has been repaired to a safe standard and some floorboards damaged by damp have been replaced. No doubt LCC would ensure it does not deteriorate as the property is still their responsibility
A “buzz” of Mason Bees have taken up residence entering an airbrick high up on a side wall. There are also white doves using the clock tower as lodgings.
d. Development of Coal Board housing.
Nothing more to report
e. Strawberry Fields Appeal, Carlton
The Appeal process is on going and Carlton Village Neighbourhood Forum are formally now involved in that process
f. Health Provision Issues
Peter indicated that he had been sent some information by Graham Fox. The procurement exercise in respect of medical services provided at New Cross Surgery had not been a success and the CCG are now looking to to agree a contract with local GPs, which it is understood means city wide.The new arrangement , Graham says, will not be time limited and will be the standard GP arrangements. Rothwell and Middleton may not be offered the same practitioner. In the meantime the present provider has agreed to continue operating Rothwell and Middleton until March 2019.
The Swillington practice is now to be run by the Oulton (Marsh Street) Practice with effect from this month.
g. Virgin Media
Peter said he hasn’t had any answer from Richard Lewis LCC to the letter Peter had sent him after the last meeting.
57.9 New and Existing Planning Application
a. Aldi planning condition variation.
Nothing new to report.
b. Springhead Park House (Further Application)
The original application seems to be constantly subject to change with another “Minor m
Material Amendment” relating to an attached garage
c. Carlton Lane Restaurant.
The status of this application has been changed and it seems the initial application was almost an exploratory exercise. The present situation is not entirely clear.
57.10 Any Other Business
Anne mentioned an article written by Cllr Golton in September’s Rothwell Record entitled Proposals “imminent” for Controversial Oulton Site. Anne referred to the last part of the article which states “ developer owner of the Haigh Side site South of Wood Lane stated the Council’s Plan for Stourton Park & Ride and the associated improvements to the Wood Lane/A61 junction will actually make it easier to argue for 400 houses on that site within 2 years.
Anne asked Cllr Golton if he knew who the developer owner is that has an interest in the site. Cllr Golton said he doesn’t know who they are. There was just a spokesperson for the developer at that meeting.
57.11 Date and Time of Next Meeting.
Monday 8th October (at 7.00pm) at Haigh Road Community Centre.


NOTES for meeting no. 56
ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING NO 56
Monday 13th August 2018 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.
Present, Anne German, Angela Kellett, Sandra Thompson, Richard Walker, Colin Bell, John McGrory, and Mary Fleet. Ian McKay, Joshua Atkins, Liam Bowers, Mike Johnson, Paul Reynolds, Paul Hardy, Jo Bicknall, Elaine Bulluch Cllr. Golton, Peter Ellis,
56.1 Welcome, Introduction and Apologies.
Peter welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies are from Roy Garside.
56.2 Approval of the notes of the previous meeting.
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.
56.3 Matters Arising from the previous meeting
Any matters will be dealt with in the meeting.
56.4 Neighbourhood Plan – Next Steps, including:
a. Review of Public Engagement discussion (9th August) with LCC Officers.
Peter reported that Anne and he had met up with Carl Hinchliffe to discuss the process of holding a Public Engagement meeting and to discuss dates. There was a decision made that the meeting would be held in the supper room at Blackburn Hall sometime in October. Carl had said he would go away with proposed dates and see if the room will be available.
At this point Peter introduced Ian McKay and handed over this part of the meeting to him.
Ian prefaced his comments by explaining what a Neighbourhood Plan is and why a Plan will be necessary to the people of Rothwell. He also described the benefits of a Community Engagement Strategy and made clear that it is a very important part of the Plan. Actions consist of organising a Public Engagement day to get the opinions of the Rothwell people. The residents of Rothwell will be asked what is good and not so good about Rothwell. All the findings will be collated and this will help refine a vision in respect of the aspirations allied to the future of Rothwell. Ian made available a document intended as a guide to the process of community and stakeholder engagement and suggested that the Forum Steering group needed to work through this guidance.
Ian also described the process allied to the Plan in terms of its ratification and the fact that it will ultimately be judged by the public in a referendum. The Plan would have to be underpinned by evidential information and that deductions must always be supported by salient corroborative data.
Sandra asked about the question of the Community Infrastructure Levy and this resulted in a discussion about how this might be expended in the context of the Plan. It was also pointed out that the funds available to communities with a Neighbourhood Plan, as opposed to those without, were more substantial (i.e. 25% of CIL from new development as opposed to 15%)
b. Swot Analysis and further initiatives.
Peter thought we would use the SWOT Analysis at the Public Engagement meeting as a means of understanding what people liked, disliked, were worried about, or thought there was the potential to improve. The Analysis was a ready-made tool that could be used to simply extract these sorts of views.

c. Other Issues: Work that can be progressed on the Plan in the immediate term.
Peter said the next step is engage with some local groups and organisations. As a starting point we attended the Tenants & Residents meeting on the 11th July. Along with Anne & John a SWOT Analysis was conducted with people who were at the meeting. This was found to be useful and the decision has been made that we will attend some more local groups and organisations and complete furhter SWOT analyses.
Non Agenda Item
A number of local residents had attended the Forum meeting with a view to discussing their concerns allied to anti-social behaviour. It was explained that there was a relationship between development design and not facilitating conditions that would help to promote such behaviour. Ian Mackay also explained the relationship between design and community provision and not creating an environment likely to result in increased behaviour of this type. It was indicated that the Forum meeting was not strictly the venue to discuss particular issues that had occurred in Rothwell recently, but it was agreed that the meeting would in any event listen to the concerns being expressed
At this point Peter handed over to Elaine Bulluch who wanted to discuss specific incidents allied to anti-social behaviour in Rothwell.
There had been problems at Pasture View with grass being set on fire. This is a grass strip supposedly set aside for wildlife conservation, but according to residents this has not been cut for over 20 years. Clearly the strip is not being managed effectively (discussion ensued about the need to mow grass at particular times and to remove the residue)
Vegetation on the Pastures and Haigh Side Wood have been set on fire.
Anti-social behaviour has been an issue on the Manor Estate. The Anti-Social Behaviour Team have been contacted by residents with the suggestion that they send out a letter to all residents asking them to log incidents. This was promised but up to date letters have not been sent out. Cllr Golton took notes and said he would chase up the letters to residents.
101 had been contacted on a number of occasions, but it was proving very difficult to get through and calls took a very long time to answer.
Morrisons – problems with continuity of security staff and different methods of approach to those committing anti-social behaviour. A standard approach would be best, tackling not only theft but aggressive behaviour which threatens people shopping in the store.
Incidents often take place in CCTV ‘blind spots’ so there is no evidence. It has been suggested that bodycams could be worn by security staff contracted by Morrisons which would provide the police with evidence they can act on.
Finally it was thought that residents would be best addressing these specific issues to community police officers who attend the Tenants and Residents Association meetings and information was made available as to when these meetings took place


56.5 Site Allocation Plan: Examination Process and Documentation
It was indicated that the examination process had been ongoing and that there were according to some reports quite heated debates allied to the definition and validity of the “broad locations” provision (involving both developers and community groups)
56.6 Theme (Greenspace): specific items.
a. Haigh Side Wood.
Anne said there hadn’t been any work days held in the Wood since the end of April. Explaining the reason for this is because we are not allowed to cut down bramble scrub because of nesting birds. We hope to resume work days in September.
Anne mentioned that the fire which took place in the wood only burnt down a small section of scrub. Anne asked Colin to explain what had happened (Colin lives close). Colin said he contacted the fire service when he saw smoke coming out of the wood. They came very quickly and the fire was promptly put out, though not before a section of land had been scorched
b. Public Rights of Way/ sign posts.
Nothing to report at the moment. (Post meeting note: Peter has spoken to Cllr Golton about the legal status of the former railway tracks at Haighside, but needs to provide Cllr Golton with a plan of the particular areas of concern)
56.7 Web Site and Communications
Sandra suggested it may be advantageous to also use social media to reach out to the Rothwell Community with regards to publicising the formation of the Neighbourhood Plan and for gathering views in relation to our SWOT Analysis model. Joshua and Liam who attended this meeting offered their expertise. Sandra will discuss next steps with Peter.
56.8 Local Issues,
a Park & Ride Scheme (update)
Nothing more to report.
b. Wood Lane Parking.
Cllr. Golton said he was not supporting the proposals allied to Wood Lane parking. It was also noted that Cllr. Bruce had sent out a circular to residents informing them of the present position and also some of the issues of concern.
c. Council Offices (F.O.R.C.E) – details update.
Peter said he has taken photos of the all the interior plus all work that is required. He has put together an embryonic plan highlighting adjustments to the building to accommodate potential occupants and is in the process of trying to arrive at a methodology that will result in the identification of budget cost estimates which will also utilise condition appraisal information allied to the building (produced by LCC). He also indicated that the intention was to produce a business plan by the end of October for review prior to a final submission by the end of the calendar year.


d. Development of Coal Board Housing, Oulton.
A demonstration by residents was held in Rothwell. Cllr Golton said the Neighbourhood Forum may wish to submit an objection to the proposals most recently out forward.
e. Strawberry Fields Appeal, Carlton
Peter attended a public meeting in Carlton and there has been a very strong objection to the 2nd Planning Application that has been submitted to planning department. The Carlton Village Neighbourhood Forum is presently (as a result of local public feeling) identifying itself as a formal participant in the appeal process.
f. Health Provision Issues.
Peter indicated he had contacted Graham Fox for an update in respect of health provision in Rothwell. The following comments were received (not exact wording)
The position at present is that the Tender for procurement of a new service provider for New Cross and Middleton surgeries was unsuccessful as no suitable candidate was identified. Graham’s personal view is that the Tender terms were so restrictive that it was not financially viable and the successful party would have to have taken both practices which - in terms of social demographics - was not an ideal situation.

The CCG are now offering the practices separately and on a more amenable contract. This should open the way for "normal" GP Private Practices to become interested. It is still intended to have the new provider in place for the end of October when the contract with the current provider comes to an end.

Assurance was received from the CCG that LS26 patients would still be able to go to St Georges Middleton. As far as Graham is aware, access is through 111 service or own GP.
There was comment that the local GP should be securing this service through the GP Federation but information is scarce.

g. Virgin Media.
Peter indicated that he had written to Councillor Richard Lewis in respect of the fibre network installation in Carlton and its disregard for the visual environment and the degrading of what are council (and strictly public assets) without much thought to how this affects the quality of streetscapes ( conflicting with local efforts to try and make Rothwell more attractive e.g. Rothwell in Bloom, notwithstanding the philosophies of the Neighbourhood Forum). There were some new attendees who felt that perhaps this was not so important, though it was generally agreed that writing to Cllr Lewis was entirely valid and had in any event been agreed at the last meeting.
56.9 New and Existing Planning Applications
a. Aldi Planning Condition Variation
Nothing new to report except that it appears that the planning application for the development included demolition and therefore the fact that the previous buildings on the site were demolished constitutes a start on site. This was something that Roy had eventually had clarified by the Planning Dept.

b. Springhead Park House (further application)
Nothing to report
c. Carlton Lane Restaurant
Peter had sent in an objection to the lack of parking space following comments from Angela and Graham Fox. Also there is the disturbance to local residents to consider. The outcome of the application is not yet available.
Any Other Business.
Paul Reynolds suggested that we should identify the key recognised groups within the area, e.g. Neighbourhood Forum, Tenants and Residents Association, Outer South Community Forum etc and get representatives from these groups together to see if we can reduce/remove duplication of effort and repeated discussions, by agreeing the roles and responsibilities of each group as a quorum, rather than independently. We should also look to do more extensive communications to the residents of the area so that everyone knows of the existence of these groups and how and when to contact them. Peter also mentioned that the fact we don’t have a Civic Society in Rothwell might be a limiting factor, so it might be worth considering this, or something similar where reps from each of the groups would meet on a regular basis to discuss the inter-related issues, to ensure a coordinated approach to challenges and opportunities. This might lead to a recognition and agreement that some of the other local groups may indeed be best placed to produce specific elements of the Plan, e.g. the Tenants and Residents Association might well be placed to look at ways in which the plan could tackle anti-social behaviour in a long term strategic way, or one of the health care forums might be able to provide useful input on how the plan could support people with dementia and learning difficulties etc.
56.11 Date and Time of Next Meeting
Monday 10th September (at 7.00pm) at Haigh Road Community Centre.
 

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING NO 55. Monday 9th July 2018 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.
Present Colin Bell, Angela Kellett, Sandra Thompson, Richard Walker, John McVeigh, Craig Townsend, Anne German,

55.1 Welcome Introduction and Apologies
Apologies were received from Roy Garside and Cllr. Karen Bruce

55.2 Approval of the notes of the previous meeting.
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

55.3 Matters Arising from the previous meeting.
Any matters will be dealt with in the meeting.

55.4 Neighbourhood Plan – Nest Steps, including:
a. Review of meeting held on 2nd July with LCC Officers
Peter said he thought the meeting they had with LCC Officers went very well and thanked everyone for attending. From Peter’s point of view what had been discussed and the points put forward by Ian McKay and Abbie Miladinovic were very helpful and he felt that we could now start to move forward more positively with the Neighbourhood Plan. He gave an overview of that meeting.
Ian had said that help would be provided in respect of producing a Planning Policy document. Ian also stated that an engagement strategy was required to map out what was necessary in terms of public engagement and indicated that they he and Abbie would produce something in this regard. He suggested engaging with some local groups and conduct a series of SWOT analyses, the results from these will be a basis for holding a public engagement meeting. Cllr. Karen Bruce said that she would help to organise this with the help of Carl Hinchcliffe. Blackburn Hall was suggested as the venue. There was agreement among the members and a discussion as to the timing of the event. Anne suggested October. This was agreed by all and Karen indicated that she would ask Carl to get in touch with Peter to let him know the date.
Two students, Chris Malone and Archie Noden, also attended the meeting on the 2nd July. They described to members present, via a presentation, the initial work they had progressed in respect of a character assessment for the Rothwell Neighbourhood Area. This was very informative and gave the members a greater understanding of some of the elements to be contained within the Plan. Work would be on-going to complete this work

b. SWOT Analysis and further initiatives.
Peter discussed the way forward and the idea of engaging some local groups in conducting the SWOT analysis of Rothwell. Angela suggested going along to the next Tenants & Residents meeting which is being held on Wednesday the 11th July as a starting point. This was agreed so arrangements were made for Peter, Anne & John to go along to the meeting.
There was also a discussion about engaging further local groups. Sandra suggested we go along to the local Windmill Youth Club as we require views of the young people as well. The members thought this was a good idea. Sandra and Angela also highlighted the idea of having posters located in different venues to collect comments using a SWOT format. Peter said would we think about any other groups and organisations we could engage with and let him know. Action Points. When Peter had received these he would produce a schedule.

c. Other Issues.

55.5 Theme (Greenspace) specific items
a. Haigh Side Wood.
Anne said there hadn’t been any more work days at Haigh Side Wood because this would cause disturbance to nesting birds. Anne also said she would be going into the wood to conduct a survey and hopefully take some photos of butterflies to put on the website.

b. Public Rights of Way/Sign Posts.
Anne said she had, along with Peter, met up with Roy to discuss the way forward with the future development of a footpath on the old mineral line on Haigh Side. Roy asked if we would contact LCC Parks & Countryside and Peter would also contact Councillors on establishing the legal status of the some of the old railway line “tracks” that are in the ownership of the Council

55.6 Website and Communications
Sandra indicated that she would change the leading photograph on the website/blog heading. She also hoped that it would be possible to include shortened highlights of meeting minutes to make it easier for people to read. Peter said he would try to produce something in this regard. Action Peter to produce précis of the minutes for inclusion

55.7 Site Allocation Plan: Examination Process and Documentation.
Peter indicated that the examination process was underway and that the Forum was not participating in this process, having made written representation previously. He had understood that there was considerable consternation about the definition “Broad Locations” definition and that the methodology adopted by the Council to bridge the gap between the outcome of a revised Core Strategy and a Site Allocation Plan that otherwise could not be consistent with it.

55.8 Local Issues.
a. Park & Ride Scheme
Peter indicated that he had attended a Park and Ride meeting on the 5th July and that there had been considerably more attention paid to the impact of the proposals on the road infrastructure and services to the South of the new facility, particularly the A61. He referred to a hard copy plan in the meeting (previously circulated to members). This included reference to the Wood Lane junction and to improved bus lane provision and an intent to reduce journey times of buses in particular.

b. Wood Lane Parking.
At the same meeting of the 5th July (see above), the question of Wood Lane and parking proposals was brought to attention. Officers at the meeting had said that this was something that they found difficult to comment on as it was not part of the P and R remit and was being dealt with by other officers in Transport Management. Cllr. Bruce, also in attendance made it clear that this was not good enough, bearing in mind the consternation that had previously been expressed in respect of the subject. It was clear that further discussion was likely to ensue elsewhere.

c. Council Offices
Meetings were being held regularly by F.O.R.C.E. and Ruth and Peter brought attendees up to date with progress. F.O.R.C.E. would have a stand at the Rothwell Carnival on the 14th July where it was hoped to increase public interest in the initiative. It was still the intent of the F.O.R.C.E Committee to produce a Business Plan in respect of the enterprise by the end of October

d. Rothwell Education Centre
The Centre had officially re-opened on the 6th July and there was an open day on the 7th July. There followed some discussion about the courses on offer.

e. Development of Old Coal Board Housing, Oulton
No new information was made available

f. Strawberry Fields, Carlton.
Peter said Miller Homes had submitted a second application into the Planning Dept. However the appeal against the original objection to the scheme is likely to proceed. The new application is much as original submission.

g. Health Provision
Peter hasn’t heard any thing more. Action Points. He will contact Graham Fox and try to obtain an update for the next meeting.

55.9 New and Existing Planning Application
a. Aldi Planning condition variation
Action Points. Peter will contact the local Cllrs to see if they have heard any further developments


b. Spring Head Park House (further application)
Peter said he hasn’t had any communication from Simon Bulmer as to whether he has any objection to the preserved timber framework of the Manor House being used in the one of the houses. Peter indicated that he would submit something to the Planning Dept., subject to the views of Mr. Bulmer. The issue primarily related to the fact that the frame would not be accessible to anyone other than the occupier of the new house.

c. Other Schemes
No notification of anything new.

55.10 Any Other Business
It was agreed that Peter would submit a letter to the Council in respect of the impact of the Virgin Media works on the locality and in particular the condition and appearance of pavements that has resulted.

55.11 Date and Time of Next Meeting
Monday 13th August (at 7.00pm) at Haigh Road Community Centre

DRAFT NOTES ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD: FORUM STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No 54. Monday 11th June 2018 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.

Present Anne German, Peter Ellis, Ruth Webster, Mary Fleet, Richard Walker,
John McGrory Sandra Thompson

54.1 Welcome Introduction and Apologies
Carl Gledhill, Angela Kellett, John McVeigh, Colin Bell, Roy Garside

54.2 Approval of the notes of the previous meeting
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings

54.3 Matters Arising from the previous meeting
Any matters would be dealt with in the meeting

54.4 Neighbourhood Plan – Next Steps, including:
a. Forthcoming discussion with LCC Neighbourhood Plan Management.
Following agreement at the last meeting to aim for a discussion with Ian McKay and Abbie Miladinovic on Monday the 2nd July at 6.30pm, Peter indicated that he had confirmed with Ian and Abbie that this arrangement was satisfactory. The discussion would be held at the Haigh Road Community Centre.

b. SWOT Analysis
“Strengths and Opportunities” of Rothwell had been considered at the May meeting. Members continued debating the “Weaknesses and Threats” to complete the initial exercise. Peter would collate the outcome of the discussions. Peter had understood that this was a process that would need to be discussed with the community.

c. Other Issues
No other issues were discussed.


54.5 Theme (Greenspace) specific items:
a. Haigh Side Wood
Anne said she had met up with Peter, Colin and Rod at the Wood on Saturday 19th May to plant the wild flower plants that had been delivered. Anne said there are no more work days planned at the moment. Mary said she had some bird/Bat Boxes and she would deliver them to Anne’s house. Anne thanked Mary and said she would let Jodie Robertson know and arrange for them to be put up.

b. Public Rights of way/sign posts
Anne said she hadn’t had any communication from Roy as to when he would like to arrange to set up a meeting with Peter to discuss the new footpath at the Haigh Side site. She will contact Roy again and see when he will be available.

54.6 Website and Communications.
Inclusion of various items were discussed e.g. latest initiatives at the Wood

54.7 Sit Allocation Plan: Examination Process and Documentation.
Peter indicated that following various emails, Karen Bruce had pursued the issue allied to contributing to the SAP Examination by the Forum. However it transpired that the submission made by the Forum would be accounted for and that in speaking at the Examination of the Plan there were limitations in terms of introducing any new comments .In the light of this and accounting for what had been imminent deadlines to register attendance, there had seemed little point in making a verbal representation.

54.8 Local Issues
a. Park and Ride scheme (update)
Peter said he hadn’t had any recent communication from Steve Carmody at Carlton as regards the latest situation. Hopefully correspondence with the Group Engineer dealing with Park and Ride, Sean Hewitt, will eventually reveal further aspects allied to the Wood lane situation. Certainly the Transport engineers had said they would consider the impacts of Park and Ride on the Southern entrance to Leeds e.g. A61 in more detail.

b. Council Offices/F.O.R.C.E (update)
Ruth said that everything was going really well. Arrangements have been made to aim to complete and present the Business Plan by October this year. The Lib Dems have pledged £30,000 which is a real help. Other funds are being investigated. Certainly early indications were positive, but the Business Plan would be a significant piece of work judging from an example of a successful plan that had been obtained in respect of Bramley Baths

c. Wood Lane.
Peter said the LCC have agreed the parking restriction plan and this will be put out for public consultation. Peter said the plan hasn’t been made public on the appropriate website as far as he could determine and indeed trying to identify anything clearly on the website in respect of TRO’s was a challenge.

d. Rothwell Education Centre
Peter said he went to a meeting held at the Centre (members of TARA were also present) and it turned out to be very positive. It transpired that the Centre will open in September and at present work is progressing in relation to the needs of the community and the identification of the courses on offer. Attendees at the meeting were asked to register their views. There will be an open day in July.
The proximity of the Council Offices to the Centre may yield some commercial advantages.

e. Development of Coal Board Housing, Oulton.
No further developments

f. Strawberry Fields, Carlton.
As had been alluded to at the previous meeting the application had been rejected, but now the developer is appealing against the decision as was expected. The Carlton Forum would be discussing this matter in respect of next possible steps, but the issue was becoming increasingly complex.

g. Health Provision Issues
There is going to meeting held at the Health Centre, Rothwell on the 19th June to discuss the extended access services (evenings and weekends) proposed for Rothwell if anyone would like to attend.

54.9 New and Existing Planning Applications
a. Aldi Planning condition variation.
Peter said he had sent a letter to the Inspector dealing with the Appeal by the cut-off date reiterating objections to the variation to the planning application to extend closing and delivery hours.
It was less than clear if the minimal works that had occurred on the site constituted a formal start that would avoid re-application, but it was presumed that this is probably the situation.

b. Springhead Park.
Peter had sent out to all members a new planning application for a new Coach House and two new houses to be built on the old residential block site. He had been alerted to the situation by Roy. Included in the plans there is also a proposal that a frame from the Old Rothwell Manor House is to be integrated into an extension to the Coach House (on the site of the “Art House”). There was a discussion about this and Peter said he had written to Simon Bulmer to try to understand whether the use of the frame was deemed to be satisfactory by the Historical Society.

c. Other Schemes
Nothing to report.

54.10. Any Other Business.
Nothing to report.

54.11 Date and Time of Next Meeting.
Monday 9th July (at 7.00pm) at Haigh Road Community Centre

DRAFT NOTES. Rothwell Neighbourhood Forum: Steering Group Committee Meeting No. 53 Monday 14th May 2018 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.

Present Anne German, Ruth Webster, John McGrory, Richard Walker, Angela Kellett, Sandra Thompson. Colin Bell, Carl Gledhill. Anne Heeson

53.1 Welcome, Introductions and Apologies.

Members were welcomed to the meeting. Apologies were received from Karen Bruce, Cllr. Carmel Harrison, and John McVeigh.

53.2 Approval of Notes of the Previous Meeting.

The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

53.3 Neighbourhood Plan – Next Steps, including:

a. Forthcoming discussion with LCC Neighbourhood Plan Management.

Peter said as Ian Mackay had found that he has some issues in attending the meeting tonight (and also Abbie Miladinovic was away, but would like to attend). He thought that they could perhaps be invited to the July meeting as they would be available to attend or indeed any Monday from 18th June (for the next four Mondays). The opinion of the meeting was that it might be prudent to arrange a bespoke meeting. So there was a discussion with members and a date of Monday 2nd July was proposed. Everyone was in agreement for Peter to get in touch with Ian Mc Kay and suggest this date for the meeting with Ian and Abbie.

Peter also said he would like us all to consider putting together a SWOT Analysis as this was something that the LCC Officers had brought to attention with the Carlton Forum recently. Peter suggested we take part in a small exercise and spend half an hour of the meeting going through this and see what we come up with. To show what he meant he went through an exemplar analysis he worked on with Carlton Forum. So everyone expressed their ideas on Rothwell’s Strengths, Weaknesses. Opportunities and Threats would hopefully be considered at the next meeting in June.

b. Possible Workshop and Public Meeting.

Peter indicated that he thought we should have a workshop and A.G.M as soon as possible. There was a suggestion that Blackburn Hall would be a good venue as it is central also that a Saturday would be best as most people are at home and we want to be sure of a fairly good attendance. Peter said that he would like to progress an A.G.M first which hopefully will not take too long and then to follow that up with the workshop / meeting. There was a discussion of what aids would be required i.e. Objectives, Information Boards, Photographs etc. The time for the workshop would be sometime between 10am to 4pm and Anne

suggested a date in early September when everyone should be back from holidays. Nothing was confirmed, but the matter would be discussed at the next meeting.

c. Other Issues

No other issues were discussed

53.5 Theme (Greenspace): specific items;

a. Haigh Side Wood.

Anne reported on the last work day, which was 20th April, 180 wild flower plants were planted in various areas of the woodland. Anne also said there would be another 50 plants being delivered the next day so she would like the next day to be on Saturday the 19th May and she would require help in the planting. Colin & Peter said they would help. The time to start would be 10am.

b. Public Rights of Way/sign posts.

Anne said Roy would like to set up a meeting with Peter on the Haigh Side site to discuss the proposed new footpath on the old Mineral Line. Anne had been in touch, but Roy couldn’t manage to attend at the moment because of other commitments. Anne said she would contact Roy to see when he would be available.

53.6 Health Service Access changes re: St Georges Centre, Middleton.

Anne Heeson reported on the situation allied to St George’s Centre Middleton and the establishment of extended access services (services at evenings and weekends) where it has been indicated that such provision for LS26 might be achieved at Seacroft Hospital. There is considerable concern in respect of this initiative as access to Seacroft is not easy with limited public transport from Rothwell. It is understood that a letter has been sent from the Patients Representative Group to the CCG expressing reservations at the proposal and the lack of community consultation.

Roy had also been in detailed correspondence with the CCG on this matter.

The subject of procurement of general practice services currently provided by Grange Medicare Ltd was also mentioned and the ongoing bidding process to identify replacement providers in respect of Rothwell New Cross and Middleton Park GP surgeries

53.7 Website Communications.

There was nothing to report. Peter said that previous discussion with Abbie Miladinovic at a recent Carlton meeting had revealed that assistance allied to web sites can be made available if deemed to be required.

53.8 Site Allocation Plan: Examination Process and Documentation

Peter indicated that the Independent Examination of the Site Allocation Plan by appointed Planning Inspectors was soon to recommence and that the list of speakers did not include the Forum.

Peter was not entirely sure why this was the situation, but suspected that it might be something to do with the fact that the most recent Forum representation was not made on LCC standard forms ( as had been the situation in respect of comments submitted as part of the Core Strategy Review). However it was pointed out that RNF had submitted comments as part of the previous rounds of consultation and that surely this was pertinent.

Roy had very recently been in correspondence with the Programme Officer, Helen Wilson, in respect of this matter and was still awaiting replies.

.53.9 Local Issues

a. Park and Ride Scheme.

Nothing at all had been heard in respect of the proposals for some time and Peter said he would contact Steve Carmodie at Carlton to find out the latest situation. However he was fairly sure nothing had been forthcoming from LCC

b. Council Offices (update).

Ruth said everything is going very well and the feedback is very positive. The Liberal Democrats have pledged £30,000 and also two other business may pledge funds (no amount mentioned.)

Ruth, said a person who has a Physiotherapy business in Woodlesford has also shown interest in opening a clinic in the offices to add to other expressions of interest that have been informally received

She also said that having a stall at the May Day Celebrations was really successful and a number of people expressed an interest in joining Friends Of Rothwell Community Enterprise It is hoped something similar can be put in place at the Rothwell Carnival


c. Wood Lane Parking (update).

Carl said he understood that a consultation with residents before the restrictions are put in place but no date has been mentioned.

d. Development of old Coal Board Housing, Oulton.

No further developments

e. Royds School.

Carl said there hasn’t been any further developments, but he has heard the Headmaster is leaving.

f. Strawberry Fields, Carlton.

The plans have been rejected and the developer now has the option to appeal against the decision. On the basis of the views expressed by the planning consultant (representing Miller Homes) at the presentation meeting in Carlton some months ago, it was clear approval was not anticipated and that they expected to win the resulting appeal.

53.9 New and Existing Planning Applications.

a. Aldi Planning Condition Variation

Peter said that following rejection of the variation in opening and delivery times, Aldi were to appeal the decision. No further news at the moment, but Peter hoped if possible to make some representation to the Inspector, though clearly on behalf of the Forum objection comments had previously been submitted in respect of the Aldi application.

b. Springhead House.

Nothing more has been heard.

c. 320 Wood Lane.

The planning application to turn the residence in to a Nursery has been turned down.

e. Other schemes.

Virgin Broad Band. Peter is intending to write a further letter of complaint about the mess the contractors have made to very many of the footpaths in our area.

53.10 Any Other Business

Ruth talked about putting a bid in to Gareth Verity asking him if the Tour de Yorkshire would put Rothwell on the route.

The question of the General Data Protection Regulation was discussed

53.11 Date and Time of Next Meeting.

Monday 11th June at Haigh Road Community Centre.

Rothwell Neighbourhood Forum: Steering Committee Meeting No 52

Monday 9th April 2018 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre

Present Anne German, Mary Fleet, John McGrory, Peter Ellis, Ruth Webster, Carl Gledhill, Chris Tunstell, Craig Townsend, Angela Kellett

52.1 Welcome Introduction and Apologies

Members were welcomed to the meeting. Apologies were received from Roy Garside and Sandra Thompson

52.2 Approval of Notes of the Previous Meeting

The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be accurate record of proceedings.

52.3 Matters Arising from the previous meeting

Anne said that she had a meeting with Roy, in relation to 51.5b, but she would provide a report under Theme Groups.

52.4 Plan Document.

a. Aspects of the Plan (that we can progress now)

Peter distributed a copy of a Planning Aid document laying out the ideas for producing the Neighbourhood Plan. There are aspects of the Plan that could be authored now, such as the introduction and the background relating to the Forum and a description of the Neighbourhood Area and its characteristics. Peter said he had not had any success in contacting Abbie Miladinovic (from CDV Neighbourhood Planning Support) to ask for feedback on the Forum Vision, Objectives, Philosophy document he had sent to her. He would keep trying. We require feedback to know whether we are on the right track or not before we progress further. It is hoped that Abbie or Ian Mackay might be able to attend an imminent future meeting.

b. Workshop and Public Meeting

Peter indicated that he had been trying to contact with Carl Hinchcliffe (Area Officer, Communities and Environment in respect of convening a workshop event to try and improve the situation from the perspective of public engagement and to further discuss Plan objectives and vision (as had been suggested by Cllr. Bruce). He would report on progress at the next meeting.

52.5 Theme (Greenspace): specific items

a. Haigh Side Wood.

Anne said she had looked into Forum membership of Green Alliance, but it would seem we would have to pay £40 to join. There is a contact number so Anne said she would pursue the matter further.

A meeting was held on Tuesday the 20th March with Vicky Nunns LCC (Parks & Countryside Officer).Anne, Peter and Jodie Robertson were also in attendance .There was a discussion on how the recent funding given to the Forum to enhance Haigh Side Wood. A decision was made to obtain 2 No. finger posts, 2No.interpretation panels and a seat. In addition it was hoped that it would be possible to widen and level a portion of the existing footpath and also obtain some plants.

Anne reported there had been another work day held at Haigh Side Wood on the 29th March. Stephen Ward had been invited to take photographs to go along with an article Anne has put together for the Rothwell Record. Cllr. Golton also attended and helped with clearance of more scrub and preparation of two beds for sowing seed. This was done but we don’t know whether the seed has come through yet. Anne will check.

b. Public Rights of Way/Sign Posts.

Anne reported that she had a meeting with Roy Garside to get his ideas of what he would like to see done with the old Mineral Line that runs beside St Georges to Longthorpe Lane. At the moment this Old Line is not a designated Right of Way. Roy would like to see this “track” made into a new designated footpath which would be a part of the South Leeds Green Corridor connecting Rothwell to Wakefield. Peter also distributed a map showing the said Railway Track also a Plan of land and Rights of Way North of Wood Lane in the ownership of LCC. Anne and Peter will be meeting up with Roy to decide the way forward with this proposed new “Green-way”.

52.6 Website and Communications

Nothing to report.

52.7 Core Strategy and Site Allocation Plan

a. Core Strategy Review submission

Peter confirmed that the Forum submission had been completed and sent eventually utilising the LCC standard forms, together with assessments of “soundness” in respect of each item brought to attention.

52.8 Local Issues

a. Park & Ride

There was no new information.

b. Council Offices (update)

Ruth reported three more people have made enquiries about renting space in the Offices one was from a person who owns a café. There has been a lot of interest shown to the Facebook page which has been set up. As reported in the previous meeting, Ruth setting up a table at the May Day Carnival to promote the issue, together with F.O.R.C.E merchandise

c. Wood Lane Parking.

Chris Tunstall wanted to know when is the right time to send in an objection to the new traffic scheme because this will only push the motorists of Valley Park to park on St Georges and other side roads. Peter said it was his understanding that the new Traffic Regulation has to be advertised for comment and that signs on Wood Lane should be posted much as a Planning Application. However the information on the LCC website was not very accessible or clear on this point. There was some discussion about the proposed plan and the concern that while it might improve matters on the main carriageway it would be very likely to move the problem parking more deeply into adjacent estates. The real issue was for the employers at Valley Park to accept their responsibilities and make available a satisfactory level of on- site parking.

d. Development of old Coal Board Housing, Oulton

Angela reported that a Coal Board Union representative had been interviewed on Calendar news and also a couple who live in one of the houses. The organisation that owns the site wants to develop it and remove the housing. Tenants obviously do not want to relocate because they are rooted in the community and these are their homes. Unfortunately the existing housing is not in a very good state as the houses are of the “Airey” type (post war houses that utilise prefabricated columns / structure on which concrete panels are secured) and this limits the potential for refurbishment of existing properties and undermines one argument for their retention. The whole question of affordable housing was discussed.

e. Royds School

Nothing new has been reported.

f. Strawberry Fields, Oulton

Nothing new has been reported. The application is still “current”

52.9 New and Existing Planning Applications

a. Aldi planning condition variation

The latest application to extend opening and delivery hours has been rejected but Aldi are still able to appeal.

b. Springhead Park House

Nothing more has been reported

c. Nursery Application 320, Wood Lane

Peter said he would have a look, as a result of comments made at the meeting, as to whether we should submit an objection, particularly in the light of the increased parking on Wood Lane allied to the Valley Park issue

d. Other schemes

Peter said he couldn’t find anything on the Council Planning website other than Morrisons are changing their signage consistent with their new commercial insignia

52.10 Any Other Business

There was a discussion about highways digging channels in the footpaths around Rothwell. Peter explained Virgin Media are laying fibre optic cables to bring faster Broadband to householders. Peter read out a letter (not from the Forum) of objection he had sent to Cllr. Nagle about the standard of work and the impact on Council assets and the response received from Cllr. Lewis at LCC which essentially indicated that the Council had no choice to accept the situation. Peter said he was intending to follow up what appeared not to be an entirely acceptable reply, though it was clear the matter was rather complex.

52. 11 Date and Time of Next Meeting.

Monday 14th of May at Haigh Road Community Centre.
 

Rothwell Neighbourhood Forum: Steering Committee Meeting No 51 Draft notes.
Monday 12th March 2018 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre

Present Anne German, Mary Fleet, Sandra Thompson, Colin Bell, Richard Walker, John McVeigh, John McGrory, Peter Ellis, Ruth Webster.

51.1 Welcome, Introductions and Apologies.
Members were welcomed to the meeting. Apologies were received from Carl Gledhill, Angela Kellett and Roy Garside

51.2 Approval of the notes of previous meeting held on 19th February.
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

51.3 Matters Arising from the previous meeting.
50.6 Public Rights of Way
b. Anne said she hadn’t had as yet anything further from Roy Garside on the matter of Public Rights of Way.

51.4 Plan Document.
a. Making improved progress on Plan
Peter indicated that he had sent details of the Forum Vision, Objectives, Philosophy together with details of meetings and the results the questionnaire etc. to Abbie Miladinovic (from CDV Neighbourhood Planning Support) and was awaiting a reply. In recognition of comments made at the last meeting, Peter advocated that the Group might concentrate on sorting out some of the lighter aspects of the Plan e.g. photographs, examples of good design etc. Little could be done on the objectives etc. until a public workshop had been convened. Stewart, at the previous meeting, had suggested that evidential data might be better procured through the Council, so with that in mind the Group could only deal with peripheral aspects of the Plan.

Mary had put together a schedule of organisations that exist within Rothwell to demonstrate the level of “Community Spirit” that exists in the town. This will be useful to refer to in the Plan document when setting the scene and also it was thought that it was clearly important to liaise more effectively with some of these organisations who have demonstrated such interest and community connectivity.

b. Workshop and Public Meeting.
Following on from the suggestion made by Karen Bruce at the last meeting that a workshop could be convened by reference to Carl Hinchcliffe and the Outer South Committee, Peter would try to chase this up. It seemed prudent to also consider the possibility of an AGM and to try to get back on track in terms of governance.

51.5. Theme (Greenspace): specific items.
a. Haigh Side Wood.
Anne reported that the date of the next work day at the wood has been changed to Thursday 29th March time to be announced later. Anne said she will let all concerned know. The last work day went well and we made another pathway through the bramble to the recently revealed grass land. It is all looking good. Also Anne said Rothwell In Bloom have offered to pay for some nest boxes to be put up in the wood.( Thanks to Mary for this! ). It was agreed following discussion that nine boxes would be installed (including bat boxes). Public Liability Insurance for has now been arranged and we just have to pay the yearly premium by the 16th March. Peter said he would do this but would need to contact Roy in order that the cheque could be signed by both signatories

Anne also reported that a date had been arranged on Tuesday 20th March at 2.00pm at the café in Springhead Park Rothwell for the handing over of the 106 monies to the Forum. Jodie Robertson, Vicky Nunns, Anne & Peter will be attending. Also the intention is that a community partnership agreement will be signed with Parks & Countryside which will enable the Haigh Side Community Group to work independently and also enable us to join the Leeds Green Parks Forum. This in turn will help us with funding in future.

Anne also asked Peter whether the Forum should be a member of the Green Space Alliance. Anne had looked at their website and she thought it would be a good idea for us to be a member as they are very important in objecting to development on Green Belt. Peter agreed that this was ok

b. Public Rights of Way/Sign Posts.
Anne is to get in touch with Roy in respect of this matter

51.6 Web Site and Communications
Nothing to report

51.7 Core Strategy and Site Allocation Plan consultations
a. Draft response to revised SAP submission
Peter confirmed that the Forum submission in respect of the Site Allocation Plan modifications had been submitted

b. Consideration of Core Strategy review
Peter took the members through the submission response that he had configured in respect of the Core Strategy Review which related to modifications to the approved document, and inn particular to aspects allied to housing and green space. He asked everyone to have a look at Spatial Policy H 7 on housing and Policy G6 on Greenspace. If there were any more comments anyone wanted to add to the submission, Peter asked if these could be forwarded to him. The submission would need to be made by the 23rd March

c. Dangers of unapproved SAP e.g. Strawberry Fields, Carlton.
There was a public meeting held in Carlton and 70 residents attended with all three Cllrs. This meeting was very useful and if the development application is turned down then it is felt that it will probably be the subject of an appeal. The Carlton Village Neighbourhood Forum are intending to respond formally to the application now that they have a greater understanding of the views of the Community.

51.8 Local issues
a. Park & Ride (update)
There was no new information. Peter did read out the latest comments to have been made available to Steve Carmody by Lisa Hill, Senior Transport Engineer with LCC.

b. Council Offices
The new group that has been formed and the name will be Friends of Rothwell Civic Enterprise (FORCE). A Committee has been partially formed and interest shown from Rothwell Temperance Band to have a practice room there and the Police to have a presence there instead of Haigh Road. The group are at the stage where they will apply for funding to conduct a survey of the building. There is work being carried out inside and out at the moment. Ruth said there will be a stall at the May Day celebrations informing people what the new enterprise group is hoping to do with the building.

c. Wood Lane Parking
The meeting looked at the plans related to the Traffic Regulatory Order on Wood Lane and considered what the impact of this would likely be

It is understood this work will be carried out on Wood Lane in the near future subject to consultation. Double yellow lines are to be painted going along the left hand side of Wood Lane to the Wood Lane Stores and on the junctions of the approaching roads to stop motorists from parking so close. It is also understood that there is going to be restricted parking hours on the right hand side of the road. These signs will be placed on lamp posts.

d. Development of Coal Board housing, Oulton
No further information was evident

e. Royds School
It is less than clear what is happening, if anything, with regard to this initiative.

51.9 New and Existing Planning Applications.
a. Wakefield Road
Nothing more has been reported.

b. Aldi Planning
There hasn’t been any more reported , but the meeting was conscious that Aldi are supposed to be starting on site before the three year time span since scheme approval is at an end.

c. Carlton Lane.
Nothing more has been reported

d. Springhead Park House
Peter said the modern part of the house has been knocked down and that the damage was such that rendering was being put forward as a method of dealing with the Northern face of the existing building

e. Other Schemes.
Colin reported that 341 (320?) Wood Lane is up for sale. An application has been put in for “change of use” to a Nursery including 15 car parking spaces. Peter said he will look at this before the next meeting.

51.10 Any Other Business
No further business was brought to attention.

51.11 Date and time of next meeting.
Monday 9th April 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.

Rothwell Neighbourhood Forum: Steering Committee Meeting No 50
Monday 19th February 2018 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre

Present. Anne German, Richard Walker, Cllr David Nagle, Cllr Karen Bruce, Cllr Stewart Golton, John McVeigh, Mary Fleet, Ruth Webster, Peter Ellis, John McGrory, Carl Gledhill

50.1 Welcome, Introductions and Apologies
Members were welcomed to the meeting. Apologies were received from Colin Bell and Roy Garside.

50.2 Approval of the notes of previous meeting held on 15th January 2018.
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

50.3 Matters Arising from the previous meeting.
49.4 LCC and Evidence of Governance
Peter had not yet collated the information required by LCC, but hoped to do so in the coming week

49.5 Plan Document, work packages (including Philosophy, Vision and Objectives)
Peter had said at the last meeting that he would circulate standard Planning Aid guidance in respect of Neighbourhood Plans and confirmed he had done so

49.8 Core Strategy Review, Site Allocation Plan and Briefing Meeting and Consultation.
Peter did send out the minutes of the meeting he attended on the 19th December at the Civic Hall. Further matters will be covered in this evenings meeting.

49.9a Park & Ride Scheme
Peter confirmed that he had attended a further meeting on the 6th February in respect of Park and Ride at the Leeds Transport Office in Middleton and hoped to circulate some notes from this. He was conscious that some of the information was described as draft and not for circulation, but had already sent out a few pages from the Park and Ride Report (described as Draft) where Rothwell was specifically mentioned. The document was very large and he had just received an electronic copy, but this needed splitting up as about 800 pages of the report related to Traffic modelling.

50.4 LCC and Evidence of Governance
As indicated under matters Arising, Peter had yet to send out information to LCC which would include Minutes of meetings questionnaire results and analysis, Vision, initial objectives, Philosophy etc. The reasons for doing this is that LCC need to be confident that
efforts are being made by the Forum and hopefully this may lead to some additional resources being directed at the Forum by LCC. Peter was concerned that the weakness that presently existed was lack of evidence of public engagement and Cllr Bruce indicated that some assistance might be possible through the Community Committee perhaps in the form of a workshop. This was very much welcomed by the meeting.

50.5 Plan Document and consideration of work packages
Peter indicated that, in the absence of ratified objectives and vision, he felt there were other aspects allied to the Plan that would be ultimately required, but were not necessarily affected by the outcome of the objectives /vision exercise and that in the meantime these aspects might be able to be addressed. Examples were establishing good examples of local development, Rothwell History, photographs etc. The other aspect was evidential information in respect of infrastructure items allied to for example Health and Education transport etc. Cllr Galton felt that it was asking a lot of people to try to establish this information and that much of it probably resided with LCC. Cllr Bruce said that efforts could be made to see what specific information existed. Peter pointed out that the main problem with things like information allied to the Leeds Observatory was the difference in boundaries between Ward and Neighbourhood Area. It was said that clarity on this issue would sought.

50.6 Theme (Greenspace) specific items:
a.) Haigh Side Wood.
Anne talked about the success the group had on the last work day on the 9th February. Photographs were distributed showing how the group had cut through the scrub to make a new path into the back of the wood. A very nice grassy area was revealed and with future work and help of Catherine (the lady from Urban Buzz) this area can be managed for Bees, Butterflies and other beneficial insects which in turn will be vital food for the birds. There has been another work day planned for Friday the 23rd February at 11am.
Anne also mentioned there had been an email sent from Vicky Nunns, Parks & Country Sides Officer, to Cllr Golton asking if it can be arranged for representatives of the Forum to meet up with her as soon as possible to progress the transfer of the Biodiversity 106 monies to the Forum. Anne said she would ask Jodie Robertson to contact Vicky and ask for a meeting as soon as possible.

b.) Public Rights of Way.
Roy had sent out an email on the 15th February which said: He had further discussions with those concerned but is still awaiting a map of the area around St Georges etc.; He is looking into the ownership of the area on which the footpaths rest. Anne said she had contacted Roy to say she had a map of the footpaths for that area and she will meet up with Roy after he returns from his holiday.

50.7 Web Site and Communications
Nothing to report.

50.8 Core Strategy and Site Allocation Plan consultations
a. Draft response to revised SAP submission
Peter circulated a copy of a response that he had put together in respect of the revised SAP consultation. This included a paragraph welcoming the retention of Haighside as Greenbelt (Broad Location), but indicated that the Forum would like to see this situation remain. It will not be clear just what the intent is for this land until the Core Strategy Review has been completed. Peter indicated that he had been to the Civic Hall earlier in the day to review the plans for Outer South and had confirmed his understanding of the situation (with Lois Pickering from LCC) allied to Broad Locations and Safeguarded Land was correct. He also brought to attention the lack of clarity in terms of Safeguarded Land, which is being brought into sharp focus at Carlton with the anticipated Outline Planning Application at Strawberry Fields. An example of how the absence of a confirmed 5 year housing land target and the lack of an approved SAP are conspiring to cause speculative submissions from developers (In this case Miller Homes via ID Planning). Peter said he would make a few more modifications to the text of the submission to try to improve it before submitting.

b. Consideration of Core Strategy review
There is also a further consultation on the Core Strategy, titled the Core Strategy Selective Review (CSSR). Peter had circulated some of the documents allied to the CSSR a few days ago (16/2) to assist members in reviewing the document. As usual this review is only, as noted at the last meeting in respect of the changes that have been made to Core Strategy, mostly in the light of the modified housing target for Leeds. The Review response is required by the 23rd March. Peter hoped to have some sort of Draft response for discussion at the next meeting

c. Dangers of unapproved SAP e.g. Strawberry Fields, Carlton.
Peter expressed his concern at the situation in Carlton and hoped that the issue of speculative initiatives would not be applied to any of the sites in Rothwell. It was recognised however that the sites in Rothwell that were now defined as “Broad Locations” retained
Greenbelt status and as such perhaps were less open to the Carlton problems, but this
could not be guaranteed as anyone was allowed to submit an application.


50.9 Local Issues
a. Park and Ride Scheme (update)
Following the meeting with Transport Management Officers and Councillors on the 6th February to primarily discuss the Transport Assessment. A number of issues were brought to attention including the problem of the Leeds Valley Park and parking on Wood lane and the concerns allied to access from Wood lane and the solutions to feared traffic congestion on the A61. What was clear was that Transport Management were devoting more effort to try to resolve these issues in an attempt to improve the Park and Ride proposals and seemed to better recognize the issues that prevail in respect of the southern access to the Park and Ride. Peter to circulate information

b. Council Offices
Cllr Golton felt confident that we a partnership can be put together for a Community Transfer of the building. Costs of managing the building have to be looked into also arrange a meeting with Rothwell residents to pool ideas was suggested. Carl asked if anyone from the Council is inspecting the building. Cllr Nagle said he would find out if there is a schedule. The Friends of Rothwell Civic Buildings is starting to meet on a regular basis and Cllr Golton is also looking to put forward an expression of Interest in respect of the Local Centres Programme. This matter was discussed including the background to the programme and the methodology of making such an expression and the time scales which had been less than clear.

c. Wood Lane Parking
This matter continues to be an issue, but there is likely to be a scheme put in place to offset the parking situation on Wood Lane. However the concern that parking will merely migrate to adjacent estates still exists. The Council have expressly ruled out a car permit initiative on Low Shops lane and the associated estate.

d. HS2 Rolling Stock Yard.
Nothing to report

e. Development of Coal Board Housing.
Cllr. Nagle said there was nothing further to report, though the meeting as a whole expressed great dismay at the plight of the residents affected by this unsatisfactory state of affairs.

f. Royd’s School.
David Nagle talked about the need to build a new school on the existing site. This building will include Sports Facilities. The existing building is very old and is subject to constant roof leaks so something will have to be done, but there isn’t any money to do this at the moment. Peter had understood that there had been a suggestion that the school might be re-located in the vicinity of the 4x4 site and the houses built directly on the school site. This apparently is not something that is being considered as far as could be understood.

50.10 New and existing Planning Applications
a. Wakefield Industrial Unit.
No new plans have been submitted.

b. Aldi Planning condition variation.
Nothing to report except that submissions had been put forward to LCC by the Forum

c. 13 Carlton Lane (additional house)
Nothing to report.

d. Springhead Park House.
Peter said that there was an application on the Planning web site for a tree to be taken down as a result of its proximity to the boundary wall. Cllr. Nagle said this was probably related to the fact it was undermining the wall. Peter had yet to properly investigate and will report to the next meeting on the issue. Unless it was a tree of great significance he would not put in an objection. However there might be a need to provide a general comment (i.e. process allied to Conservation Area etc.)

e. Other Schemes.
Nothing to report.

50.11. Any other business.
No further business was brought to attention

50.12. Date and Time of next meeting.
Monday 12th March. 7pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.


Rothwell Neighbourhood Forum: Steering Committee Meeting No 49

Monday 15th January 2018 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.

Present Anne German, Sandra Thompson, Peter Ellis, Mary Fleet, Carl Gledhill, Ruth Webster, Richard Walker, David Nagle, Stewart Golton, John McGrory

49.1 Welcome Introduction and Apologies

Members were welcomed to the meeting. Apologies were received from Roy Garside, Angela Kellett, Craig Townsend and Colin Bell

49.2 Approval of the notes of the previous meeting held on the 4th Dec 2017

The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

49.3 Matters Arising from the previous meeting 4th December 2017.

49.4 Document Structure

Peter had met Ian Mackay from LCC and discussed the Neighbourhood Plan and progress

49.5 c Public Rights of Way

Roy brought to attention in an email the following matters arising: During the process of putting together an objection to the Wakefield Road Industrial Unit he had discussed with the Public Rights of Way team the footpath adjoining the site. The lady was very helpful and this lead to a broader discussion on the surrounding footpaths and particularly the footpath following the old railway line running North/South along the side of the St Georges site boundary.

She confirmed that from their records there was no such formal footpath in this area. From the aerial photographs she accepted that one could be seen but is not recorded on their system and therefore it does not exist as a formal footpath.

She agreed that sometime in the New Year (the discussion was before Christmas) she would send Roy the appropriate documents for us to apply to

have the footpath formalised and she would also send him a larger plan of footpaths in the area.

49.8c Local Issues Wood Lane Parking

Roy did not think we should leave the letter referred to from Highways as the end point. The parking at the entrance to Low Shops from Wood Lane represents a danger at the entrance of the site and feels the matter should be pursued further.

For one day (during the past week) what appeared to be video cameras were mounted at the junction of Low Shops and Wood Lane covering both roads.

49.7 Core Strategy Review and Revised Site Allocation Plan

Peter attended a meeting on the 19th December at the Civic Hall which was a briefing session in respect of the present status of the Site Allocation Plan and included an explanation of the term “Broad Locations”

49.8b Council Offices

Stewart reported he had attended a meeting with Enterprise to discuss how Headingley Development Trust formed into a social enterprise to deliver a Community Asset Transfer of their building from the Council. This was in anticipation of requesting an asset transfer of the Rothwell Council offices.

Peter also said he had written another letter of objection to the development on the old factory site. Since then the development has been refused.

49.4 LCC and Evidence of Governance.

As indicated in Matters arising Peter had met Ian Mackay and his assistant Abbie Miladinovic and discussed the issues facing the Forum in respect of the Plan. The outcome of this was that there was a requirement to let Ian and Abbie have various documentation to show what had been done so far i.e.

Draft Vision, Philosophy and Objectives together with sample meeting notes and the outcome of the survey and analysis. Peter is to try to collate this. It was clear from the meeting that more help could be provided by LCC and that this to a great degree might minimise any need to appoint consultants i.e. to restrict appointments to very specific pieces of work.

Peter hoped to get in touch with Ian McKay/ Abbie Miladinovic to see if they will be able to attend our next meeting in February to assist with what we require to for the Neighbourhood Plan.

49.5 Plan Document, work packages (including Philosophy, Vision and Objectives)

Peter distributed new copies of the Vision Statement and objectives. He explained how the objectives need to back up the vision (and how the vision feeds into the themes and objectives leading to the development of policies). He went on to say that themes may feed into more than one objective and likewise the objectives may relate to more than one policy.

Peter distributed copies of developing a vision and objectives. This document lays out what is required to start a Neighbourhood Plan and is on the LCC Planning Aid website. Peter will send us the link so we can look through the whole document. He explained when we have a document laying out the vision and the objectives completed then he felt we should think about holding a public meeting to ask people for their input into the Vision Statement and to ratify objectives. He also suggested that we may also need to instigate a further community wide mail shot. Following this we shall hopefully be in a good position to consider in more detail the necessary policies that will form the backbone of the Plan. While all this is being sorted out there is nothing stopping us making progress with more peripheral aspects of the Plan that are not dependent on the ratification of objectives or authoring of policies and in this way time can be better optimised.

49.6 Theme (Greenspace): specific items.

a. Haigh Side Wood.

Anne said the next work day at the wood will be on Friday the 19th January. Jodie Robertson is bringing along a new Urban Buzz person called Catherine Jones to talk to us about enhancing areas for pollinators and how the Urban
Buzz can help us with our work. Catherine will also run bee surveys next year which will help with our Biological recording.

Anne read out an e mail from Jodie Robertson saying she had previously visited the wood in December with Catherine and Elspeth Robinson from YWT. Everyone thought the woodland was great, especially as it is completely natural so everything is growing where it wants to be. Elspeth suggested that in the future (once we have got the Balsam under control) we could create some scrapes in the wet/willow woodland by the beck – this would be even better for biodiversity. Catherine and Elspeth were also in agreement to target the grassland on the hill top first to stop the scrub encroachment.

Jodie also said she had contacted various people regarding the trees next to the pond/Haigh Beck which has been previously cut down. The landowner wasn’t told to cut the trees down and as it is not LCC land and there is nothing the council can do, as the landowner has not acted unlawfully. It may be that the pond needs more light or too much silt is building from the leaf litter.

Anne looked into obtaining Public reliability Insurance with Merkel Insurance Company. Anne had received a quotation from the company and in the paperwork it stated that if a claim is made then the Forum would be required to pay an excess of £100. As the Forum haven’t sufficient funds at the moment, Anne hadn’t taken the matter any further. There was a discussion with Stewart and David and they said we should take out this insurance and if in the event of a claim then the Cllrs would look at helping with the cost of the excess. So Anne and Peter will look at doing this.

b. Public Rights of Way/sign posts.

Stewart said he would like to see some new Public Right of Way sign posts as they are in a state of disrepair. Anne agreed that this is one of the things earmarked to do when we have some funding.

c. Section 106 monies.

Stewart stated there is a sum of money become available from the housing development on the old Woodlands Public House site on Wood Lane. He suggested that this money be used for Biodiversity on the site of Haigh Side Wood. There was a discussion on how the money could be used and a few suggestions were made. Which were a new Public Rights of Way sign,

Interpretation Panel and a bench. Anne thanked Stewart for making this money available to use in the wood and agreed the suggestions. Anne said she would discuss the possibilities with Jodie Robertson and let Stewart know what has been decided.

49.7 Website and Communications

Sandra did not have any issues to bring to attention and would still try to keep the website up to date despite having issues that would not allow her at the moment to maintain her present level of involvement with the Forum.

49.8 Core Strategy Review, Site Allocation Plan and Briefing Meeting and Consultation.

Peter has been in touch with Martin Elliot Development Plan group leader and asked him for feedback of the meeting held on the 19th December which he had attended and would circulate this when this was received.

There then ensued a discussion about the status of the Site Allocation Plan (SAP) and the meaning of the term “Broad Locations”. There is a disparity between the number of houses now required in Leeds (adjusted due to a combination of factors including contemporary census data etc.) and the number of houses contained within the Site Allocation Plan. The Core Strategy (CS) should contain the edict in respect of housing numbers and the SAP should indicate how those numbers are to be achieved. The Council do not want to reinvent the SAP or entirely disrupt the inspection process, so in order to achieve a relationship between the CS and the SAP a term called “Broad Locations” seems to have been introduced. Essentially this allows certain identified potential development sites to be maintained as Green Belt sites effectively held in reserve (Haigh Side is one of these). It is presumed that the sites that are still ear marked for development will equate to whatever is then contained within the Core Strategy Review.

Peter indicated that the Council would be consulting on the modified Site Allocation Plan, but only in respect of the changes that had been made, not the Plan as a whole.

49.9. Local Issues (any new Issues any updated)

a)Park and Ride Scheme

Peter reported another meeting is to be held on the 6th February with various Council Officers and Councillors. |Peter talked about how the scheme will have a real impact with traffic backing up further up the A61 and at the junction at Wood Lane. Apparently the staff from Valley Park won’t be able to use the Park & Ride this is for bus passengers only. Cllr Golton described some of the detail allied to the new transport Initiative. (Detail may need to be reconfirmed at the next meeting)

b) Council Offices (Latest Initiatives)

Cllr Golton called a meeting on the 12th January which was attended by Cllr Bruce, Scott Williams, Surveyor, Peter and other interested parties. The outcome was that a formal request has been sent to Cllr Cooper to agree to a Community Asset Transfer.

c) Wood Lane Parking etc.

Carl discussed the Valley Park parking problem. There was concern that additional spaces created at the Valley Park site might be seen as a chance to cancel an existing arrangement that used local pub car parks and shuttle buses, thus resulting in a net decrease of spaces, thus exacerbating unregulated parking in other locations around Wood Lane

David reported that the Lovell Company (call centre) staff are looking to increase their staff to 2,000 and no increase in staff parking so that is going to make the parking problems worse on Wood Lane and adjoining roads.

d)HS2 Rolling Stock Yard.

Cllr. Golton read out an article published in the Yorkshire Evening Post on the 08th January. The Article talks about a piece of track with a spur allowing the train to branch off in a different direction. Fast forward to 2018 and it is six spurs like these to be built into the planned route of the High Speed 2 line between London, Leeds and Manchester. With £300m from Government which will allow it to join up with the Northern Powerhouse rail from East to West.

A touchstone at Stourton (Rolling Stock Yard) would allow his speed travel from Liverpool to Newcastle and other points in between. A vital component of a vision for a better connected and more powerful North.

e) Development of old Coal Board Housing, Oulton

Cllr Nagle said nothing has happened yet. Cllrs and residents are waiting to hear what the planning department has to see before taking the matter further.

Sandra said the residents thanked everyone concerned for signing the petition and have asked would everyone please oppose the planning application.

49.10. Forum Protocol for Planning Submissions

Peter referred to the ongoing situation allied to |Planning Applications and the need to respond to these. He was aware that he had perhaps slightly “jumped the gun” in respect of latest submissions allied to the Industrial Unit and the Aldi variation of Opening and Delivery hours. In future he would aim to better circulate this information before sending anything out to LCC. The Industrial Unit had been turned down and the Aldi situation had been based on previous discussion of what was considered acceptable and Peter indicated that he had merely reiterated this situation. The meeting was content with what had been submitted, but in future Peter indicated that he would allow due time for consultation before making such submissions, however perfunctory these may be.

49.11. New and Existing Planning Applications

a)Wakefield Road Industrial Unit

This Application has now been refused. Will just have to wait and see whether another one is submitted.

b) Aldi planning condition variation

Peter had submitted two separate objections for Opening and Delivery Times and had based those objections primarily on the impact on local residents

c) 13, Carlton Lane (additional house)

Peter indicated that there was a further application for an additional house on the land presently being utilised as the site base.

d) Springhead Park House

Nothing else to report in respect of this scheme

e. Other Schemes

Nothing to report

49.12 Any Other Business

Nothing to report

49.12 Date and time of next meeting.
Monday 19th February. 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM NOTES OF STEERING GROUP COMMITTEE MEETING NO 48.

Monday 4th December 2017 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre

Present: Anne German, Sandra Thompson, Peter Ellis, Craig Townsend, Mary Fleet, Carl Gledhill, Ruth Webster, Angela Kellett

48.1 Welcome Introduction and Apologies
Members were welcomed to the meeting. Apologies were received from Roy Garside, David Nagle, John McGrory, Colin Bell.

48.2 Approval of the notes of the previous meeting held on 9th October 2017
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

48.3.Matters arising from the previous meeting.
Matters arising dealt with below.

48.4  Document Structure
Peter distributed copies of the document diagram and vision statement he has devised as the structure to support our Neighbourhood Plan. Peter explained how the vision feeds into the themes and objectives leading to the development of policies. Peter explained that the themes may feed into more than one objective and likewise the objectives may relate to more than one policy.

Peter noted that there are two types of policy – land policies and non land policies. LCC has informed that non land policies may be contained within the documentation itself, not necessarily in the appendices.

We need to demonstrate how we inform the public. Added to our previous plan to eventually hold a public meeting, we could encourage participation by inviting input into the vision. We also need to show how we decided on the importance of key themes.

We may have committee workshops to put individual sections together.

If we held an A.G.M. this could be combined with and information session.

We would like to encourage new members who have particular areas of expertise to join the Committee.

On this point, Peter wrote to J. Hall and received reply from Ian Mckay, who is now the point of contact, to say he would like to attend a meeting. Peter surmised that Mr McKay will probably want to talk about Governance. Peter will contact him to get more specifics and arrange a date.

As this will be a key meeting we plan to invite representatives from local community groups and those people on our mailing list to attend.

48.5 Theme Groups.
a. Haigh Side Wood.
Anne said our Community Group had a good work day on the 21st November. The front of the wood is nicely opened up now with the help of the farmer who was on site cutting back hedges. The next work day has been arranged for Friday 19th January 2018. Also Anne said she is going to look at obtaining Public Liability Insurance so our group can work at the wood independently.

b. Green corridor and trees.
Anne also mentioned that Roy had sent and email and a drawing round to the members showing that the farmer at Haigh Side farm has cut down approximately three trees on the edge of the pond. The said pond is at the edge of one of the farmer’s fields. Anne sent an email (with the attached drawing) to Glen Gorner and Jodie Robertson and asked them if the farmer is allowed to cut down trees without permission. Jodie got back in touch and said she didn’t know but she had emailed Flood Risk Management to ask their opinion. Anne will report back at the next meeting.

c. Public Rights of Way/sign posts
A Forum member has brought to attention certain issues allied to signage of particular Public Rights of Way and footpaths. The exact detail of this may require further confirmation

The rights of way and footpaths are local to Haighside Wood and the issue is being checked by the LCC Parks and Countryside Department. A  pathway from Wood Mount to Haighside Farm is also to be reviewed.

d. Heritage – Historic England Advice Note
An advice note has been produced by Historic England to help neighbourhood forums to write about the historical aspects of their area in their neighbourhood plan. Peter has a copy.

48.6 Web site and Communications
Sandra has added link to LS26 Local Facebook to the site as requested. Guidance was requested on compiling a distribution list of people and organisations to receive a copy of the approved meeting notes.

48.7 Core Strategy Review, Site Allocation Plan and Briefing Meeting.
Briefing Session for Local Groups on Leeds Local Plan 19th December 2017
The above meeting has been arranged by Martin Elliot, Leeds City Council as the Core Strategy is under review and there are new housing figures in a Government consultation document which show lower growth for the City. Terms like “Broad Locations” and different housing numbers will inevitably raise questions. Peter will attend this meeting and Carl will also go if his future commitments allow. A note of the meeting will be produced, alongside a newsletter and Peter has requested to receive a copy of these.

48.8 Local issues and (new issues any updates)
a. Park and Ride Scheme.
Peter referred to the meeting he attended in the Rothwell area with Transport Management about the area to the south of the Park & Ride facility. Stewart Golton was also in attendance and demanded various answers in respect of the impact of the proposals. The group engineer said he would provide written answers to questions raised and this has been done.

HS2 have paid for traffic assessment. Cllr Golton will ask if we can share this information.

Angela reported on a meeting she attended, organised by the Outer South Community Committee. to address transport issues in the area. The speaker appeared  ill prepared for the comments that were coming from the audience, and was struggling to answer concerns about the lack of service provided for Rothwell and seemed to talk about Leeds City rather than Outer South area (which was what the meeting was about). A request was made to have another transport discussion in the near future addressing prime concerns related to Rothwell. All the Councillors for Outer South were in agreement with this request.

b. Council Offices
A meeting was held on Wednesday 22 November at Haigh Road Centre to discuss the fate of Rothwell Council Offices building. Convened by Cllrs. Karen Bruce and David Nagle to gather views of local community organisations.  The buildings are in VOID MANAGEMENT and are to be sold by LCC.  Notes of this meeting were kindly produced for the Forum by Graham Fox.

The discussions encompassed finding a use for the building by the community  and various suggestions were made. Alternatively if the building was sold, would any clause be put in the sale document to preserve the integrity of the architecture and to prevent it being demolished.

The question was asked if there was any restriction on title to put an obligation on the Council to retain for Community purposes and prevent the council selling. Cllr. Nagle was not aware of any but would ask.

At this meeting a message was received form Councillor Golton which referred to groups he had contacted which had expressed an interest in using the building: a source of funds which he considered were available. Unfortunately Councillor Golton had not been invited – hence the message.

KB agreed that the building was a fundamental part of Rothwell history and must remain. She asked whether the primary concern of the group was to see the building retained or to have it brought back into community use and is exerting pressure to extend time before it is offered for sale. The group needs to act quickly.

Stewart Golton has arranged a meeting for Monday 18th December for representatives to visit the HEART (Headingley Enterprise and Arts Centre) with a view to see how the organisation and funding of this community venture work.

Carols round the Christmas Tree – Council Offices
Some leaflets were distributed around Rothwell by Ruth to highlight the Carols round the Christmas tree event outside the Council Offices event and to advertise that this may be the last time in the current venue if the historic building is sold.

c. Wood Lane parking
Roy has made mention of parking on Low Shops and Haighside Estate and the possible proposal of the residents being issued with resident parking permits. Carl was of the opinion that the streets mentioned do not qualify for residents’ only parking schemes.

The following, taken from an email to Karen Bruce from council’s highways officers, which accompanied the Wood Lane Parking Plan.
“As I have previously explained the policy for resident permit parking is that
a. There is an all day parking issue.
b. Residents are unable to park in close proximity to their homes when they return to the area and
c. The residential properties do not have their own off street parking provision/ opportunity.
As you are aware many of these side streets all have off street parking opportunity and therefore we would not be able to support permit parking in these area.”

General agreement was reached that if no extra parking provision is made then the problem will move onto areas on St Georges and surrounding streets.

It would appear that local pub car parks are already being used with shuttle busses taking people from them to work.

d. HS2 Rolling Stock Yard
The huge rolling stock yard planned for the old Skelton Grange site will house and service all trains between here and Birmingham, and operate 24/7 once it is operational.  Concerns were expressed on the impact of this intrusive development, together with the proposed Park & Ride on the volume of traffic build up on our local roads and its effect on local residents especially with reference to our current problems of volume and parking.

An LCC consultation exercise has been completed, though there is a view that some level of objection might yet be possible, though perhaps this is unlikely at this stage.

e. Development of Coal Board Housing, Oulton
No further information.

48.9 New and Existing Planning Applications
a. Wakefield Road Industrial Unit.
A transport assessment has now been done. CG said he had noticed inconsistencies in that assessment.  NJ has made another objection. Peter thought it might be necessary to do a further Forum submission

b. Springhead Park House
PE  judges that the development appears to blend in and is complementary to its surroundings. There has been a slight change to the plan i.e. a garage is to be erected.

c. Other Schemes
Peter said he had got a notification that the Barns on Bullough Lane are to be pulled down.

Aire Valley Leeds Plan Adoption
It has been confirmed by LCC that the Plan has been adopted, unlike the Site Allocation Plan.

48.11 Any Other Business
Funds. We need to ask Stewart Golton about use of S106 funds. Peter has a schedule of schemes and money raised and what it is to be spent on.

48.12 Date and time of next meeting
Monday 15 January. 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM NOTES OF STEERING GROUP COMMITTEE MEETING NO 47.

Monday 13th November 2017 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre

Present: Anne German, John McGrory, Sandra Thompson, Colin Bell, Peter Ellis, Cllr Golton, Craig Townsend, Mary Fleet, Carl Gledhill, Richard Walker, Ruth Webster

47.1 Welcome Introduction and Apologies
Members were welcomed to the meeting. Apologies were received from Roy Garside and Angela Kellett.

47.2 Approval of the notes of the previous meeting held on 9th October 2017
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

47.3.Matters arising from the previous meeting.
Peter has written two letters about the Council Offices to Cllr. Nagle stressing that we need to have conditions in the contract of sale to preserve the historic features of this building.

Planning – Bone Factory. Peter has written an objection to the planning department on behalf of the forum.

Barraclough Yard. There have been two enforcement notices put in place for a fence to be erected along the hedge that has been planted to stop people forcing their way through. Also for trees to be planted.

47.4 Identification Objectives.
Peter has received a letter from Roy suggesting that the philosophy (vision) statement should come before the objectives. So Peter completed a rough vision statement and asked all the members to read through it.  There was a discussion and a few changes were decided. Peter said he would look at the vision statement again then send it out to members.

Peter took the members through the possible Neighbourhood Forum Objectives document he had put together. There was a discussion and some suggestions were put forward i.e. green spaces in housing developments should be for the community not just for people who live in vicinity.  Developments should take proper account of existing infrastructure and what is built should reflect local demand (sub-policies can specify type of housing). Mixed housing to reflect different households including one bedroom properties, intergenerational communities. Parking requirements and acknowledgement of modern car usage need to be incorporated into new developments.  The plan should aim to be future proof. Peter will look at the document again then send it out to members.

The Council is supposed to have produced a design resource for neighbourhood forums. To be followed up by Peter.

There was mention of the Council’s Air Quality Report. As they are asking car users not to take cars into the city this could have an impact on parking within Rothwell.

47.6 Document Structure
Peter will produce a document of structured headings with no content. The content will be added as we go.

47.7 Theme Groups.
a. Haigh Side Wood.
Anne reported there had been a meeting held on the 27th October with the members of the Haighside Wood Community Group and Jodie Robertson Conservation Officer LCC. The meeting was called to put together a management plan for the future work to be carried out at the Wood.

Anne also mentioned there is another work day planned on Friday 17th November at 10.00am when work will be carried out to open up the front of the wood.

47.8 Website and Communications.
Colin suggested maybe we could put a link to the new Leeds 26 web site. Sandra said she would do this.

47.9 Local issues and (new issues any updates)

a. Park and Ride Scheme.
Peter went to a meeting held in the Rothwell area. Transport Management, Department Transport Consultation and Cllr Golton attended the meeting. Questions were put to the Council Officers about the area to the South of the Park & Ride facility and what the impact would be on Wood Lane. The group engineer said he would provide written answers to questions.

HS2 have paid for traffic assessment. Cllr Golton will ask if we can share this information.

b. Council Offices
Peter said he has written to Cllr Nagle again as he hasn’t addressed the issues in his original letter. Cllr Golton said he is going to explore funding alternatives and other uses for the building. Cllr Golton mentioned the Rothwell Mechanics Institute Trust and the Rothwell Temperance Band might have an interest in using the building. Also suggested that there could be a need for health facilities, or educational space for tutoring with reference being made to changes to G.C.S.E examinations.

Peter said there is going to be a meeting about the building in the following week. Sandra mentioned that Cllr Bruce had said if anyone in the community is interested in looking at the Council Offices to let her know.

c. Wood Lane parking
Ongoing situation.

d. Development of Coal Board Housing, Oulton
Although not strictly in our area, Peter thought it appropriate, in the spirit of communality, for the Rothwell Neighbourhood Forum to support Oulton and Woodlesford in their initiatives on this matter as residents face the loss of their homes.  Those present agreed.


47.10 New and Existing Planning Applications
a. Wakefield Road Industrial Unit.
Several revised plans have been submitted, all with small differences. The plans seem rather hit and miss and it is becoming difficult to track the changes.

b. Springhead Park House
Plan to knock extension down and build one house. Trees to be maintained.

47.11 Any Other Business – none

47.12 Date and time of next meeting
4 December 2017. 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre. 

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM DRAFT NOTES OF STEERING GROUP
COMMITTEE MEETING NO 46.
Monday 9 October 2017 at 7.00 p.m. at Haigh Road Community Centre

Present Peter Ellis, Sandra Thompson, Colin Bell, John McGrory, Karen Bruce, Iris McClements, Natalie Jackson, Darren A. Carriss-Wright, Carl Gledhill, Richard Walker, Ruth Webster.

46.1 Welcome Introduction and Apologies.
Members and residents were welcomed to the meeting. Apologies were received from Angela Kellett, Anne German, Roy Garside.

46.2 Approval of the notes of the previous meeting held on 9 October 2017.
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

46.3 Matters arising from the notes of the previous meeting.
Peter will write to Planning LCC about the development at the Barraclough site. It was stated in the plans there would be certain trees planted and this has not yet been done. No attention being paid to this development being in a conservation area. Trees are shown on the documents but none have so far appeared on the ground.

Planning consent has already been granted for the pizzeria at No 34/36 Commercial Street therefore Peter was unable to lodge an objection. Historic England was included in the list of consultees before planning consent was granted.

46.4 Identification of objectives.
For the benefit of people who had not attended our previous meetings, Peter went over his analysis of the questionnaire, as it forms the basis for the initial draft framework. Peter explained the reasons for having a Neighbourhood Plan and our previous workload dealing with the S.A.P. and other local issues which have delayed our formulation of the Neighbourhood Plan.

Cllr. Bruce explained that if a neighbourhood plan is in place then a higher percentage CIL will be invested to benefit the community affected by development.

Peter has used his analysis of the questionnaires to produce an initial list of objectives. He will email these to forum members so we can begin to fill in some details and bring back to the table for discussion and progression towards an initial draft Framework at the next and future meetings.

When this process is complete, the next step will be a public consultation.

46.5 Theme Groups Haighside Wood.
Colin reported that at the Haighside Wood Action Day, Jodie Robertson had suggested defining what the community would eventually get from using the wood, at to that end applying for funding from various sources. When Anne returns she will arrange a meeting with Jodie.

 46.6 Website and Communications
Discussion around publicising the Neighbourhood Forum stemming from new people attending this meeting who up until recently did not know of our existence. Sandra will put information on existing Facebook contact and one suggested by Carl. We could have our own Facebook page, which would be good for publicity, but it would need to be managed by someone. Notices could go onto community notice boards around Rothwell.

46.7 Local Issues
a. Park & Ride
An event has now, at short notice, been arranged to take place at the Windmill Youth Club on Thursday 12 October. This in response to an email sent to Bus Consultation by P. Ellis and R. Garside on behalf of the Neighbourhood Forum requesting a local venue.

b. Rothwell Council Offices
Peter will write to David Nagle to urge that some protection of the building is included in the terms of the Sale. This building is of immense importance within the civic history of Rothwell, given mention in Pevsner Architectural Guides and described in the ‘Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan’ produced by LCC as “The prestigious Town  Hall, now council offices, in Marsh Street was built to house the UDC in 1895. Although impressive, the offices have a modesty and conservatism of scale and design that perfectly represents the nature of the town and its leaders through this period of unprecedented flux and change.

The suggestion was made that a meeting should be arranged so that the people of Rothwell were made aware of the sale of the Council Offices, and invited to make suggestions for ways it could be used as a community resource. This would entail costs for hiring a venue and advertising. No discussion followed.

c. Bone Factory site Industrial Unit (17/03889/FU)
Concerns were raised about the plans for this industrial development including those listed below.

 Drainage. It was stated that the drainage facilities are not adequate, surface water is not drained into sewer but will go to Haigh Beck which is already an overloaded water course.  Apparently there has historically been a lack of draining facilities, and there are concerns that Environment are not fully aware of the implications. As a meat processing business it would be assumed that a lot of contaminated water would be produced which would have to be discharged.

 Highway Safety. Residents are already very concerned about speeding on this section of the road and surmise that increased volume of vehicles using the highway and also the spatial allowances made for wagons on the proposed new/extra lanes to be introduced will only exacerbate potential for serious accidents. The speed on this stretch of highway has been recently lowered to 50mph. Residents have requested speed reduction in the past but had been told it was not possible. Suspicions that this has only now been implemented in light of the planning application. In any event, the residents reported that many vehicles are driven with no regard to the speed limits.


 One resident mentioned a significant blind spot on this section of the highway.
 
 The question was asked if video evidence of problems could be submitted to Planning.

 As has been mentioned many times at our meetings, Highways do not undertake risk assessments.  There was agreement that this seems to be ludicrous given the huge potential for damage to life, limb and property.

 On site parking.  Planning have reduced the number of parking spaces allowed in accordance with their ratios. The Forum considered this to be short sighted, as in the real world people travelling to work in the early hours would of necessity need to park as public transport does not offer a sufficient level of service. Not allowing sufficient parking spaces due to outdated ratios will only lead to on-street parking causing more havoc and danger to local people. A suggestion was made that the Highways Department need to review and update their ratios to reflect modern day conditions for members of the public.

 Mines One of the objections to the proposal is from The Coal Authority who have indicated that there are two recorded mine entries on the site. They object to the proposed development in its current form until such time as it can be demonstrated that the site can be made safe and stable for the proposed development in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF. On the resubmitted plans some changes have been made but no reasons given for the changes. 

 Building out of character with surrounding buildings.

Peter had sent two objections letters, one personal and one on behalf of this forum. In light of new information discussed tonight Peter will write another letter of objection. It was hoped that members of the forum would also write to object.

Peter advised the concerned residents to inform their neighbours to individually express their objections to this development in writing to highlight the level of concern within their community.

46.8 New and existing planning applications
34-36 Commercial Street. Dealt with under Matters Arising.

46.9    Any Other Business.
Peter asked Cllr Bruce about setting up a Civic Society. As she was in the process of leaving the meeting she asked Peter to contact her later.

Double yellow lines – Wood Lane. Brief discussion on placement and current situation regarding double yellow lines and their effect on parking and obstruction on Wood Lane and surrounding streets.

46.10 Date and time of next meeting
The next meeting will be held on Monday the 13 November at Haigh Road Centre at 7.00p.m.
 


ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM DRAFT NOTES OF STEERING GROUP
COMMITTEE MEETING NO 45.

Monday 4th September 2017 at 7.00 p.m. at Haigh Road Community Centre

Present Anne German, Sandra Thompson, Colin Bell, John McVeigh, John McGrory, Peter Ellis, Angela Kellett.

45.1 Welcome Introduction and Apologies.
Members were welcomed to the meeting. Apologies were received from Cllr Bruce, Roy Garside, Jim O’Neill, Carl Gledhill, Richard Walker, David (John McVeigh’s friend), Anne Heeson.

45.2 Approval of the notes of the previous meeting held on 10th July 2017.
The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

45.3 Matters arising from the notes of the previous meeting.
 Peter mentioned the letter he had received from Historic England about the Council Offices not being listed. We need to establish whether there are imminent threats to the Council Offices and should there be it would be necessary the contact Historic England again. The need to have conditions in the contract of sale to preserve the historic features of this building was discussed.

 Planning – Bone Factory - One of the objections to the proposal is from The Coal Authority who have indicated that there are two recorded mine entries on the site. They object to the proposed development in its current form until such time as it can be demonstrated that the site can be made safe and stable for the proposed development in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF.

 SAP Haighside – No further communication from LCC regarding the information requested by the Inspectors regarding the stability of the Haighside site.

Matters arising from Roy Garside (in his absence), made available 03.09.17

Item 44.4 Task Schedule.
The list of headings will need to be reviewed when a framework for the Neighbourhood Plan has been drafted. Until then the initial 5 headings still seem logical. It is however very important that an initial draft Framework is produced as soon as possible.

With regard to the bottom line relative to the Local Plan the Programme issued by the Inspectors for hearing evidence indicates that the process will not complete until November plus possible overspill. This means that the Councils programme date for the examination to complete in October will be exceeded.

The inspectors request for information following my e-mail to the Programme Officer regarding housing numbers and the relationship between the SAP and the Strategy Review will however mean that the adoption of the Plan presently shown as March 2018 is unlikely.

Site Allocation Plan
No response had been received from Martin Elliot or John Hall regarding the issues raised nor had Roy had any response from members regarding details of the open space at the end of Low Shops which may be shown on their house deeds.

No further details had been received from the Council regarding the information requested by the Inspectors regarding the stability of the Haighside site, but Roy will continue to pursue this.

Bone Factory
Roy has had no further contact with the planning officer dealing with this proposal but I now understand that he is on holiday. One of the objections to the proposal is from The Coal Authority who have indicated that there are two recorded mine entries on the site and they object to the proposed development in its current form until such time as it can be demonstrated that the site can be made safe and stable for the proposed development in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF.


45.4 Neighbourhood Plan Structure (including review if the O and W Pre-submission Document)
Peter distributed partial copies of the O and W Neighbourhood Plan Pre-submission consultation Draft 2017 to 2033 and took the members through the document.

Peter asked if we would look at the document in detail and consider how it could help us to put our own neighbourhood plan together ( i.e. particularly in respect of establishing a framework for our own document, as it was recognised that the O and W pre submission was very logical in its construction and “flow”.

Notwithstanding the progress that O and W had made there were a number of observations from Ian Mackay (LCC) which were discussed at the O and W meeting and these would also be helpful going forward with our document and perhaps would help us to avoid pitfalls. One of the main comments was the need to underpin all observations and deductions with the necessary evidence.

Peter also said he would circulate some notes from the O and W meeting he attended, which had been convened to discuss Ian Mackay’s comments,( and also included some information about a forthcoming Housing Design Guide for use by Neighbourhood Forums that is expected to be available in October).

45.5 Questionnaire Summary and Consideration Objectives.
Peter circulated a Questionnaire Analysis. The most dominant results within the questionnaire relate to the greater protection of the environment and heritage. Peter thought that aspects considered as most important by the community should feed through to the objectives.

Peter noted that ,as unlike O&W, we have not had any public consultation meetings           (something that Ian Mackay felt was a very notable feature of the O and W Plan). To this end, once the objectives have been initially set, we could hold a public meeting to get them ratified.

As Peter pointed out, the processes involved in setting objectives and developing our plan will be iterative, feedback can be used to make alterations and adjustments. Therefore we need to begin the process.

45.6 Theme Groups Haighside Wood.
Anne mentioned a Community Workday has been arranged at the Wood on Saturday 23rd September. Start at 10am and finish at 12pm.

Anne also stated that Jodie Robertson, Habitats Manager had sent her a flyer from Green Leeds Funding Body advertising the last round of a funding application which is to be in by the 22nd September. Anne asked Peter if it would be satisfactory to apply for a small amount of funding which would go towards levelling out part of the footpath running through Haighside Wood. Anne and Jodie would apply for this together. Peter agreed and with this and hoped it would be successful

45.7 Website Communication
The questionnaire summary will be put online.

45.8 Local Issues.
Angela stated the land at 13 Carlton Lane is now being developed. There has also been a subsequent formal application for removal of trees. Angela said she thought it was stated in the application there are some trees to be replaced. Peter said the application for removal doesn’t include replacement.

Peter is going to write to Planning LCC about the development at the Barraclough site. It was stated in the plans there would be certain trees planted and this has not yet been done. Again, no attention being paid to this development being in a conservation area.

45.9 New Planning Applications
Pizzeria at No 34/36 Commercial Street.
Peter said he would write to Planning to register concern about the need for protection of the historic aspect and internal features of this building, particularly the Jacobean Plaster Ceiling. This is a Grade 2 * listed building, indeed the only one in Rothwell.

Springhead House.
The full application for Springhead House is not yet available except for one of the houses in the grounds.

45.10. Any Other Business.
The need for an A.G.M. was again briefly discussed.
Action – to be put on agenda for next meeting.

45.11 Date and time of next meeting
The next meeting will be held on Monday the 9th October at Haigh Road Centre at 7.00pm

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM

NOTES OF STEERING GROUP Extra Ordinary Meeting

And COMMITTEE MEETING No. 44

Monday 10 July 2017 at Haigh Road Centre at 7.00pm.

PresentAnne German, Sandra Thompson, Peter Ellis, Colin Bell, Richard Walker, Roy Garside, Peter Ellis, Angela Kellett, John McVeigh, Stuart Oldroyd.

44.1 Welcome, Introduction and ApologiesMembers were welcomed to the meeting. Apologies were received from Cllr Nagle, Cllr Bruce, Cllr Golton, Jim O’Neil, Carl Gledhill, John McGrory.

Roy indicated that because of his wife’s problems he would need to leave the meeting no later than 8-45 p.m.

A. EXTRA ORDINARY MEETING.Meeting declared quorate.

Purpose.With Peter’s agreement Roy had circulated an e-mail 2 June indicating that he had agreed to take over the lead of the Forum for a while to provide some form of continuity whilst Peters family problems continued.

It had been necessary to cancel the meeting arranged for 12 June and the next meeting had been arranged for 10 July.

The purpose of the 10 July meeting was to continue with the business of the Forum but before doing so it was necessary to obtain the agreement of the Steering Committee members to the change in leadership for the time being.

Present Position.Roy expressed willingness to continue with the lead providing this was acceptable to Peter and the members. The only qualification being that his time commitment was limited by the recovery of his wife and he therefore would not always be able to cover all issues.
This was unanimously agreed.

B. STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING.

44.2 Approval of the notes of the previous meeting held on 13th March 2017The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

44.3 Matters arising not on AgendaNone.
AGMRoy indicated that because of time constraints and the arrangements presently in place he did not wish to pursue this matter at present. After discussion however it was agreed to look at this matter at the next meeting so that other items on the agenda could be addressed.

Action - This item deferred until September meeting.

Technical SupportRoy indicated that until the Forum was able to secure the necessary finances to fund technical support he was not willing to pursue the matter further.

44.4 Neighbourhood Plan Framework – Task ScheduleRoy passed around the latest Task Schedule and took us through this. Roy explained the Site Allocation Plan was submitted in May this year. Inspectors have been appointed and will commence in the autumn this year. Using the programme indicated by the Council the examination will be completed in April 2018. The adoption of the plan following modifications would at the earliest be September 2018. Roy has said he has not seen any reference to the Core Strategy review.

44.5 Neighbourhood Plan.Peter has agreed to begin formulating the philosophy which will take account of the analysis and comments from the questionnaire. Despite distributing widely there still seems to be a deficit of views from the 20-40 age group. Peter asked the members present if they have any views on the Philosophy to pass them on to him.

Roy had met David Cove of Oulton and Woodlesford to discuss cross boundary working to try and achieve coherence within Neighbourhood Plans e.g. the future transport and education requirements.

David had also indicated that their plan was almost finalised for comment by Ian Mckay etc. and he would send a copy to us when it was finalised and this could be circulated and commented on.

Site Allocation Plan – Current Situation.Roy referred to a letter he had circulated which had been initially addressed to someone in Haighside Way which had been sent by David Feeney who was responsible for the Site Allocation Plan.

The letter advised the residents that the Site Allocation Plan Enquiry was now underway and Inspectors had been appointed. Roy had attempted to contact David Feeney but had been directed to Martin Elliot.

Roy spoke to Martin Elliot who confirmed that Council Officials had been revisiting development sites included in the S.A.P. to familiarise themselves with boundaries and topographical features prior to public examination commencing.

Additionally Roy had been speaking to John Hall about the documentation showing the Open Space on the development land which was allocated to the residents of the Wimpey Estate in the 1970’s. Apparently there are no legal documents in the planning department mentioning this. Roy is trying to get hold of old deeds to sort this out. John Hall suggests the triangle of land needs to be classed as green space and attached to Haighside Wood.
Martin Elliot also agreed with Roy that it would be a good idea if local people who know Wood Lane contributed ideas to the planning brief for the Haighside site. He has not yet written to Roy confirming his view. Roy had circulated email “Comments on the Report to the Councils Development Plan Panel - Meeting 22 November.” This detailed comments on community involvement.

New Planning Applications

Bone Factory.Roy said he had previously circulated a plan of the proposed Industrial Unit development on the old bone factory site. He took the meeting through the issues and the conflict with the Haigh Side Development. Roy proposed he write a letter of objection to the Planning department and asked we also write as individual residents.

Proposal accepted by the meetingIt was brought to the attention of the meeting that a paper business is to move in next to cherry pickers on the Pelican site but no planning application put in. Possibly this is because there will be no change of use. There is the issue of where they will park in this already congested area as the presumption is there will be staff and delivery vehicles.

Action – Angela said she would talk to councillors at the next Labour meeting about this matter.

Listing of Council Offices.Peter has submitted the application to Historic England. He emailed a copy of this to Committee members and Roy thanked him for his efforts on this matter.

A.O.B.The issue was raised of getting councillor support for the Rothwell Neighbourhood Forum, even if not available to attend our meetings regularly. It would be productive if the councillors could meet Roy and Peter to talk to them on another day. It would be helpful if we had one councillor who would consistently act on our behalf.

Action - Angela said she would talk to councillors at the next Labour meeting about this matter.

44.15 Date and time of next meetingThe next meeting will be held on Monday 4 September 2017 at Haigh Road Centre at 7.00pm.
 

NOTES OF STEERING GROUP COMMITTEE MEETING NO 43
Monday 8 May 2017 at Haigh Road Centre at 7.00pm.

Present
John McGrory, Anne German, Sandra Thompson, Peter Ellis, Colin Bell, Carl Gledhill, Ian Smith, Richard Walker

43.1 Welcome, Introduction and Apologies
Members were welcomed to the meeting. Apologies were received from Angela Kellett, Cllr Nagle, Cllr Bruce, John McVeigh, Roy Garside.

43.2 Approval of the notes of the previous meeting held on 13th March 2017 
The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

43.3 Matters arising from the notes of the previous meeting
Peter has sent report to grant provider.  Amount of money to be returned to grant provider is awaiting Roy’s countersignature on cheque.

43.4 The Forum and communication with members
a. Progress
No Change.

b. Electronic update to members 
To speed up the distribution of meeting notes the decision was taken to send the composed notes directly to Roy to distribute for approval by those present. The rest of the distribution system to remain in place for the time being. 

There has been some confusion about the content of the lists of email addresses to which information is forwarded. Roy has requested details of the list that Carl is working from. Carl does not send the meeting notes to people on the list he uses but when the notes are on the web he lets them know and gives them the link.

John McGrory reported that no responses had been received via the Forum’s email.
Action: Roy, Peter and Carl to confer and review the emailing list.
 
43.5 Plan Technical Support requirements and options – David Gluck
Peter reported that he had not yet met with David Gluck who was not able to attend this meeting. Those present today thought it was vital to have guidance to chart our way forward to develop the Neighbourhood Plan and welcome David Gluck’s involvement. Peter meanwhile will attempt to arrange a personal meeting with him if time and circumstance permit.

Action – Peter will attempt to arrange a date for David Gluck to attend our meeting.

43.6 The Plan 
There was discussion about formulating our philosophy, objectives and attendant policies. Those present felt that input from David Gluck could be helpful in this endeavour. Roy’s revised Neighbourhood Plan Framework, discussed during our January meeting, was acknowledged as presenting the timescales for formulating objectives and completing tasks within topic areas.  Our philosophy would be influenced by the responses and analysis of received questionnaires, and the emphasis would be on deliverable objectives.

Peter said the remarks submitted via the questionnaires were interesting and added a valuable depth to the responses.

When money becomes available from developers we would like to see it spent on issues important to our neighbourhood and community. To this end we hope to have a presence at the meetings of the Outer South Committee who appear to dispense funds into the community.
Action – Peter, time and circumstance permitting, offered to draft a philosophy of how we would like to see our neighbourhood develop. This would be a starting point.

43.7 Questionnaire - revised analysis 
Peter has revised his analysis integrating responses from newly arrived questionnaires.  There is still a deficiency of responses from 20-40 age group.  Peter felt that we need more responses from this age group to give balance. As discussed at previous meeting, the idea of targeting this age group specifically was agreed.  Places of contact suggested were social venues such as Black Bull, and also asking schools if they would distribute questionnaires via the children for the parents to fill in.
Action – Sandra to ask Rothwell Victoria School if they would be willing to help.

43.8  Funding issues – Return of funds
 See Matters Arising.

43.9  LCC documentation/consultations etc.
a. Core Strategy/SAP and associated issues. 
Nothing discussed.

b. Neighbourhood Planning Conference 
Peter will email details of this.

c. Outer South Committee Meetings 
Suggested that we need to have a presence at these meetings to emphasise the Forum’s existence and maybe influence spending plans. See how things are done. 

Action - Sandra has put her name on the mailing list to be notified of their meeting dates and venues and will forward details of who to contact to Peter.

d. Planning Aid 
Peter has spoken to John Hall from LCC.Planning Dept.  He may be able to give us useful help and support in developing our plan in the future (see notes of meeting 42).

43.10    Theme Groups
a. Haighside Wood, Funding, works etc.
Haighside Wood.  Anne informed the members present that the proposed work day in April in Haighside Wood had to be cancelled. Owing to Jodie Robertson hasn't been trained in full First Aid so she can't be in charge of a large group of people completing scrub clearance. Jodie said we can commence our work day's in September when she should have completed the First Aid course.

Anne also told the members present she had met the Project Officer from the Training Conservation Volunteers with a view to laying a new footpath through Haighside Wood. Anne went through the quotation she had received which amounted to £14,262.50. The conclusion was that the Forum couldn't apply for funding for such a large amount at the moment. There was a discussion and Peter said that the exercise had been a good one and this is the sort of work we could ask the future developer of Haighside to complete with some of the development money that will become available.

b. Cross boundary themes and joint meetings 
Reiteration of previous agreement of advantages to working together with other neighbourhood forums to present a united front on cross boundary issues. Sharing of information was emphasised as a way of forming a neighbourhood plan cohesive with other plans in the area. Working on a unified front would be advantageous.

43.11 Web Site and Communications 
Peter said he would like to see the blog page as appearing to be part of the community with local links etc. The issue of receiving comments on our content, meeting notes etc. was raised. The blog page is not set up to receive comments as Sandra does not want to be responsible for monitoring them.

43.12 Local Issues
a. Bell Hill/Wood Lane Highway Changes
 A plan of proposed waiting restrictions has been produced by Leeds City Council, Highways and Transportation.  General discussion on the topic of Leeds travel plan not being viable because they think people will leave their cars and use public transport, which they won’t as getting from A to B often involves getting several busses via Z. People need to travel to work hence our local predicament.

Strongly felt opinion expressed that the solution to the problem is for Leeds Valley Park to provide parking spaces for their workers. This they seem reluctant to do.

It would appear that the proposed waiting restrictions will only force traffic even further down Wood Lane, onto side streets and onto St. Georges. In addition it would appear that unrestricted parking is to be allowed across the emergency entrance/exit sites from St. Georges.

Reference was made to efforts to persuade Caddick Estates to investigate the possibility of providing a temporary parking space on adjacent Caddick Estates land.

Steve Carmody had written to Karen Bruce re Park and Ride scheme. She received a response from Highways and Transportation which Peter forwarded by email to us on 3rd May.
   
b.  Council Offices
Unfortunately Peter’s contact was unable to find any further information to add to his application to Historic England to give the Council Offices listed status. Peter has now sent off the application, although wishing he could have uncovered more detail.

Graham Fox had suggested to Peter that the Council Buildings could be used to house a health centre. This could be an idea to be factored into our Neighbourhood Plan.

c. Rothwell Conservation Area
Peter has yet to meet with Philip Ward to discuss the Conservation Area.

d. Springhead House 
Springfield House is now up for sale. Carl reported that the developer had made pre-application enquiries. Details on Savills’ website. 
 
e. Other issues
None discussed.

43.13 Planning Issues
a. Barraclough Yard
Peter mentioned he has seen no evidence of landscaping. No Hawthorne trees as yet, but small laurel bushes have been planted between house fronts and pavement. Peter will look at plan drawings again to compare with what has been done.

b. 6 Oulton Lane
House now sold. Ian Smith reported that amended plans show two semidetached houses built in a similar character and appearance to the existing dwellings.

The issue of ownership of the strip of land on Robins Grove still exists.  Leeds City Council considers this a civil matter. Apparently when this issue was broached by a resident of Robins Grove to a builder working on behalf of the land owner of 6 Oulton Lane site, they were informed of the fact that the land owner had powerful solicitors working for them. Ian said he had given deeds including information on the strip of land to current residents. Regarding the access land LCC says the land has been adopted but can show no records of when.

c. 13 Carlton Lane
 Briefly discussed. Noted that builders are the same as those who developed the Carlton Lane School building which was agreed to be a sensitive development.

d.   Other planning applications
Aldi - Nothing heard about delay in starting build.

43.14 Any Other Business
Anne discussed The Aire Valley Action Plan - Proposed Main Modifications that has been sent out to us. Anne asked Peter if the Forum should send a letter of objection to planning about the proposed development at Skelton Gate. This is such a sensitive site due to the vast numbers of wildlife that is on this site.

Peter asked Anne do we know what the Chair of Swillington Ings Bird Group had said in his previous letter of objection to planning about this proposed development. Anne said she didn't but she would find out and e mail Peter. Conclusion was Peter pointed out that this area doesn't come directly under the forum’s remit but he would look at it and see if we should send a letter. The cut off date is 8th June.

AGM 
The AGM will be put on agenda of June meeting when a date will be fixed and venue discussed. Invitations will be sent to our member list, and an article put in the Rothwell Record. Meeting date and invitation to attend will be put on local social media sites. Aim to hold AGM within 3 months. Officers will need to be appointed (chair, secretary, treasurer etc.).

43.15 Date and time of next meeting 
The next meeting will be held on Monday 12th June 2017 at Haigh Road Centre at 7.00pm.


ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No 43
Monday 8th May 2017 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.
Agenda.

43.1 Welcome, Introductions and Apologies.

43.2 Approval of the Notes of the Previous Meeting

43.3 Matters Arising from the Previous Meeting

43.4 The Forum and communication with members
a. Progress
b. Electronic update to members

43.5 Plan Technical Support requirements and options - David Gluck

43.6 The Plan
a. Framework/Task Schedule Revision

43.7 Questionnaire- Revised Analysis

43.8 Funding issues- Return of funds

43.9 LCC documentation/consultations etc.
a. Core Strategy/SAP and associated issues
b. Neighbourhood Planning Conference
c. Outer South Committee Meetings
d. Planning Aid (John Hall letter)

43.10 Theme Groups:
a. Haighside Wood, Funding, works etc.
b. Cross boundary themes and Joint meetings

43.11 Web Site and Communications

43.12 Local Issues
a. Bell Hill /Wood Lane Highway Changes
b. Park and Ride
c. Council Offices
d. Rothwell Conservation Area
e. Springhead House
f. Other Issues

43.13 Planning Issues
 a) Barraclough Yard
 b) 6, Oulton Lane
 c) 13, Carlton Lane
 d) Other planning applications

43.14 Any Other business

43.15 Date and Time of Next Meeting.
PE 7.4.17
 

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM
NOTES OF STEERING GROUP COMMITTEE MEETING NO 42
Monday 13 March 2017 at Haigh Road Centre at 7.00pm.

Present
Angela Kellett, John McGrory, Anne German, Sandra Thompson, Peter Ellis, Colin Bell, Mary Fleet. Carl Gledhill

42.1 Welcome, Introduction and Apologies
Members were welcomed to the meeting. Apologies were received from Roy Garside, Richard Walker.

42.2 Approval of the notes of the previous meeting held on 13th February 2017
The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

42.3 Matters arising from the notes of the previous meeting
Peter has not yet contacted CoVop (Community Voice on Planning) due to time constraints but will endeavour to do so within the coming week with the view to sounding out becoming affiliated to them.

Peter has sent final report to grant providers in respect of technical support.

Health and Safety Executive not yet contacted regarding risk assessment for Highways Department with reference to parking issue on Wood Lane.

David Gluck – He is unable to come to this meeting but is willing to arrange future date, (Peter aiming for April), and will discuss what he is able to do and our options with no obligation regarding our requirements from him.

6 Oulton Lane - Peter has sent no further objection as yet.

Peter indicated that other matters arising from the notes of the previous meeting would be addressed within the agenda items to be discussed.

42.4 The Forum and communication with members
a. Progress
Nothing further to report.

b. Electronic update to members
Carl has sent emails giving link to the electronic questionnaire with the letter approved at the last meeting.
Action – John McGrory to check if any replies are received.

42.5 The Plan
a. Framework/Task Schedule Revision
Peter mentioned that inroads need to begin to be made into investigating and reporting individual subject/topic areas.

42.6 Questionnaire
a. Latest on distribution
Questionnaire forms have been delivered on Manor Estate. Peter to check with Stewart Golton on the areas he has delivered for us.

b.    Revised analysis
Peter will continue his analysis on incoming questionnaires and integrate results into current data. We will still accept any returned questionnaires although cut off date has been reached, and leave link open on our web. So far Peter has used the tried and trusted pen and paper method for analysis and will continue to do so. The last task will be to collate the electronic responses and incorporate into the existing body of results. There have been 18 online responses so far.

There is still under participation from the 20-40 age group although questionnaires have been delivered broadly across the area.  Discussion ensued as to whether integrity would be compromised if we fail to proportionately represent the views of this group, or the fact that we have covered what we need to do by way of distribution will be sufficient. We may need to consider if it is practical to make special arrangements to target this group. We could have questionnaires on stalls at Rothwell May Day celebrations. Sandra will attempt to take some to the Rothwell W.M.C and target the 20-40s. Briefly discussed practicalities of handing out at school gate.

42.7 Funding issues
The End Of Grant Report has been sent and surplus funds to be sent back soon.  We can’t make another application until we decide what tenders to make.

42.8 LCC documentation/consultations etc.
a. Core Strategy
Not discussed in detail.

b. Site Allocation Plan – Transport Evaluation
Roy has prepared a draft objection to Planning about the house allocation increase at Bullough Lane being due to the school which was allocated to the site now being omitted. Roy’s draft was discussed and it was suggested that some reference is added regarding inadvisability of siting a primary school in an area that will be disrupted by the construction of HS2 tunnel (HG2 -180 Fleet Lane and Methley).
Action – Peter will contact Roy about this.

c. Other Issues e.g. Interactive on line map
Leeds City Council is setting up an interactive map of Neighbourhood Forums and have approached Peter asking for our details. The interactive map lists all forums within LCC area and should provide a resource for networking.

d. Neighbourhood Planning conference
This is to be held in May and Peter will inform us of details when he has received them.

e. Outer South Committee Meetings
Following Peter’s meeting with David Cove and Steve Carmody, it was agreed that it would be useful to attend these meetings occasionally to keep up to date and have some representation.  Outer South Committee has some responsibility for spending money in our area.
Action - Angela will find out when the next meeting is being held.

f. Planning Aid
Peter said John Hall LCC Planning Department would like to come to our meetings and may be able to give advice about planning etc. and if we want help from Planning Aid he would talk to us about it.

42.9 Theme Group: Environment – Landscape and Greenspaces
a. Community Involvement Initiative: Community Work Days
Anne reported she had met up with Jodie Robertson the new Habitats Manager LCC. They had been all around Haighside Wood and Jodie made a few suggestions of how we could enhance habitat of the woodland. They have arranged to have a work day on Saturday 25th March.

b. Haighside Wood, Funding, e.g. “grass Root” grants
Anne mentioned she had approached Peter and said she would like to have a new footpath laid within Haighside Wood. Anne said she would like to apply to a funding body for a grant of £2000. The work would be given to TCV who are based at Hollybush at Kirkstall. Anne will get in touch with TCV and ask someone to meet her at the wood and see how much this is going to cost. Peter was agreeable to this.

c. Cross boundary themes (O and W  and Carlton) With reference to joint meetings
Reiteration of previous agreement of advantages to working together with other neighbourhood forums to present a united front on cross boundary issues.

42.10 Technical support requirements
Assistance is needed on various aspects of the Neighbourhood Plan. Exact requirement as yet to be fully defined.

42.11 Web Site and Communications
Invite other organisations to add link to our website. See if we can list our meetings on the new LS26 site.

42.12 Local Issues
a. Bell Hill/Wood Lane Highway Changes
The importance of potential incidents was discussed. They need to be included in the overall assessment of the site. Peter suggested if anyone should see any problems caused by the double parking on Wood Lane then we should make a note of time etc. and inform Highways.

b.  Council Offices
Peter has written a piece to include in his listing application to Historical England. He found out that there was a very good professional description of the aspects of this building in Pevsner’s Architectural Guide for Yorkshire West Riding.

c. Rothwell Conservation Area
Peter has contacted Philip Ward, Conservation Team Leader but has yet to arrange a meeting.

d. Springhead House
Peter has been told there is a company interested in buying the house probably for future housing. There was discussion about the original house frontage being preserved.

e. Other issues
None discussed.

42.13 Planning Issues
a. Barraclough Yard
    No further discussion

b.  6 Oulton Lane
Peter to write further letter of objection.

c. Aldi Variation
No change from that noted in previous Forum meeting.

d.  13 Carlton Lane
Peter is going to check the proposed usage for the land behind the house.

e.  Other planning applications
None discussed.

42.14 Any Other Business
The AGM will be put on agenda for April meeting.


42.15 Date and time of next meeting
The next meeting will be held on Monday 10th April 2017 at Haigh Road Centre at 7.00pm.

NB/PS
Post meeting note
Council Offices
Peter received correspondence from Graham Fox in respect of an alternate use for this building and this will be brought to attention at the next meeting.


ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM
NOTES OF STEERING GROUP COMMITTEE MEETING NO 41
13th February 2017 at Haigh Road Centre at 7.00pm.

Present
Angela Kellett, John McGrory, Anne German, Sandra Thompson, John McVeigh, Peter Ellis, Craig Townsend, Ian Smith, Colin Bell, Richard Walker, Mary Fleet.

41.1 Welcome, Introduction and Apologies
Members were welcomed to the meeting. Chairman thanked Anne and Sandra for writing up the notes. Apologies were received from Carl Gledhill, Roy Garside, David Nagle.

41.2 Approval of the notes of the previous meeting held on 16 January 2017
The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

41.3 Matters arising from the notes of the previous meeting
Questionnaire article in Rothwell Record. Peter’s informative article was printed in the Rothwell Record also giving the cut off date as end of February 2017 for submitting completed questionnaires. Information included on how to locate the online version with Google search to our website.

David Gluck – Peter will invite David Gluck to our next meeting to explore methods of practice to achieve our aims and what expertise is available from him to set things in motion.

Peter indicated that other matters arising from the notes of the previous meeting would be addressed within the agenda items to be discussed.

41.4 The Forum and communication with members
a. Next Steps
Carl had sent Peter a draft letter regarding the electronic questionnaire he is planning to send to members on the email list. Peter read the letter out and will inform Carl to go ahead.

41.5 The Plan
a. Framework/Task Schedule Revision
No further discussion at this meeting.

41.6 Questionnaire
a. Latest on distribution
We still do not have a definitive number of questionnaires delivered.

Action Sandra and Colin will deliver questionnaire forms on Manor Estate.

b. Actions taken
Peter has produced an analysis of the questionnaires already received. This showed that there were not many responses from those aged 20-40 years. If after the final analysis this gap is still evident then we will take proactive steps to gain their views e.g. take questionnaires to venues where we will find this age group.

Peter had informed committee members by email of trends which became apparent from his analysis. Initially 3 age groups have been scrutinised to gain a broad view of what each thought important. This may give a good indication of where dominant interests and focus lie. Peter included a chart showing the responses from the age groups, less than 20, 40-60 and 60-80.

Green belt-open spaces high importance in 40/60 age group.

Of interest was the outcome from the apparent conflict of responses to whether more houses should be built (low positive response) and more social and affordable housing should be built (higher positive response). This would possibly indicate the view that if more houses were built they should be social housing and affordable housing.

There was a strong positive response to preserving green belt and open spaces from the 40-60 group.

Peter reminded the committee that after objectives have been formulated they would need to be ratified which will entail further consultation.

41.7 L.C.C. documentation/consultations etc.
Pre submission changes – The L.C.C. document, which invites comments about the Pre Submission Changes to the Site Allocations to be made within the 6 week period between 13th February and 27th March 2017 (5pm) was discussed.

Some points extracted from the document and presented by Colin, are listed below.

HG2-173 Housing Allocations Haigh Side Rothwell - Add site requirement - "The whale jawbones should be retained as part of any future development."

Amend Local Highway Network site requirement: There is a direct impact from this development on the A61/Wood Lane junction and a cumulative impact at the A639 / Pontefract Rd junction. The development will be required to contribute to measures to mitigate the impact of this. Development should wait until Park and Ride at Stourton is completed.

There is no mention of Haighside Wood.

HG2-180 Land between Fleet Lane & Methley Lane Oulton. Add new Education Provision site requirement: Part of the site should be retained for provision of a school. The site should also provide improved pedestrian and cycle links to the station at Woodlesford.

HG2-183 Swithens Lane. Housing Allocation Revised capacity from 136 to 85 but Local Highway Network site requirement has been removed.

HG2-175 Bullough Lane – Haigh Farm Housing Allocation - Capacity increased from 154 to 222.

Other issues
Transport – mentioned that the new busses for Stourton Park and Ride are for First Bus which do not service Rothwell.

Community Voice on Planning Sandra had forwarded an email from CoVop regarding a consortium of developers challenging new ministerial statement on neighbourhood planning made by planning minister Gavin Barwell on 12 December (links to this on our web). Peter thought it would be useful to be affiliated to this organisation.

Action. Peter will respond to CoVop.

41.8 Theme Group: Environment – Landscape and Greenspaces
a. Community Involvement Initiative: Community Work Days
Anne said she hadn’t been in touch with Jodie Forrester LCC as yet. But she will get in touch with Glen Gorner this month and ask for Jodie’s email address then she will arrange to meet Jodie at her convenience to discuss the proposed future work days at Haighside Wood.

41.9 Technical Support requirements
The end of grant report is now required by Groundwork UK and Peter is completing this with due regard to further applications. Incorporation is proving a stumbling block. Information on how to proceed is required.

41.10 Web Site and Communications
Peter said he would like to see more links included to other relevant organisations.
Action. Sandra to add links to local and other relevant organisations.

41.11 Local Issues
a. Bell Hill/Wood Lane Highway Changes
No change. Question raised as to whether the Health and Safety Executive have guidelines pertaining to road safety and parking. It would seem appropriate that a risk assessment be carried out before road markings are applied. Are Highways exempt from these measures?
Action. Peter to pursue this matter.

b. Council Offices
Peter continues the process of filling in Historical England application for the Council Offices. There is not a lot of information about the buildings to flesh out the application. The Committee agreed that there should be conditions in the sale document to preserve this building.
Action - Peter to contact Philip Ward, Conservation Team Leader.

c. Rothwell Conservation Area
No further discussion.

d. Other issues
None discussed.

41.12 Planning Issues
a. Barraclough Yard
Observation that a fence had been erected instead of a wall.

b. 6 Oulton Lane
Planning application is now for 2 semidetached houses. Planning for 4 detached was denied as insufficient room on the site. Similar objections remain regarding vehicle access, height and appearance of building materials etc. There are still ongoing issues of boundary ownership. Mr Smith has written again. L.C.C. Conservation Team have made no comments on this development so Peter may put in a further letter of objection.

c. Aldi Variation
Aldi have withdrawn their application to extend opening hours and the previously approved opening hours stand.

d. 13 Carlton Lane
Many of the objections received and the Transport Development Services
Consultation Response document refer to problems with vehicular access including that there does not appear to be sufficient room for a refuse collection vehicle to manoeuvre on the proposed road off Lay Garth.

e. Other planning applications
None discussed.

41.13 Any Other Business
The Committee will keep an eye open for applications for fracking in our area.

Joint meeting
Idea put forward for a joint meeting with the Carlton and Woodlesford neighbourhood forums and ourselves, attended by selected members, to discuss matters which are common to all/both that we can take forward jointly.

41.14 Date and Time of Next Meeting
The next meeting will be held on Monday 13th March 2017 at Haigh Road Centre at 7.00pm.


ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM
NOTES OF STEERING GROUP COMMITTEE MEETING NO 40
16 January 2017 Haigh Road Community Centre

Present
Angela Kellett, John McGrory, Anne German, Sandra Thompson, Roy Garside, John McVeigh, Peter Ellis, Craig Townsend, Ian Smith, Carl Gledhill, Stewart Golton.

40.1 Welcome, Introduction and Apologies
Members were welcomed to the meeting. Chairman thanked Anne and Sandra for writing up the notes. Apologies were received from Richard Walker, Anne Heeson, Colin Bell.

40.2 Approval of the notes of the previous meeting held on 7th November  2016
The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

40.3 Matters Arising from the notes of the previous meeting
6 Oulton Lane application. Objections have been sent to Planning. Peter has asked Philip Ward, Conservation Officer, to meet him and has reiterated to him that the 6, Oulton Lane application served as an example of the types concerns we have in terms of Planning Applications for developments within the Conservation Area. In his correspondence with Mr Ward, Peter also referred to concerns relating to Rothwell Council Offices and the importance of this building to the heritage of Rothwell and its location within the Conservation Area.

Aldi Variation. Roy has sent his letter of objections with regard to the Aldi amendment of opening hours to other councillors. He had previously written to Karen Bruce asking her if she would try and have the application considered by the Plan Panel rather than the officers and she had confirmed that she would do this.

Peter indicated that other matters arising from the notes of the previous meeting would be addressed within the agenda items to be discussed.

40.4 The Forum and communication with members
a. Next Steps
Carl informed Peter that as yet he has not sent more information to members via emails linked to Mail Chimp. One person had responded to previous email to say ‘not interested’.

Point made that people may think being a member of the Neighbourhood Forum means they have to attend meetings.  This is not the case as the meeting is of the Steering Committee. We need to make people aware of this and that we can keep them up to date and would value their contributions and views whether they attend our meetings or not.

There ensued a discussion about what information was suitable and appropriate to send via email which centred around the following: - the notes would be old news by the time approved by Steering Committee members. It would be too time consuming to edit and forward ‘highlights’ of interest.  Objectives can’t be sent until questionnaires received and analysed.

In any event, there appears to be a limit to the size of emails that can be sent via MailChimp at any one time so decision 2 below was considered the best solution.

1. Decided that cut off date for receipt of questionnaires would be the last day of February 2017 and analysis would then continue leading to the formation of a philosophy and objectives for the Neighbourhood Plan.
2. When the meeting notes are put on our web after being finalised as correct, Sandra will inform Carl who will then send a link to our blog to members via MailChimp. This means that minimal information is transmitted via email and members can access the notes online.

40.5 The Plan
a. Framework/Task Schedule Revision
Roy had circulated the revised current Neighbourhood Plan Framework. This shows the Task Schedule that will support the production of the neighbourhood plan, together with timescales including those for the presentation of the Council’s Plans to the Examiner, which have been updated in line with the information issued by the Council for the Development Plan Panel meeting 10 January.

Roy went over the plan with us, explaining the colour coded timescales and the anomaly of the Examiner being asked to approve a SAP this year, which is dependant upon a Core Strategy which is being revised and will not be available until next year when the intended number of houses may have been resolved.

Discussion followed on the links between forming objectives, our philosophy and tasks to be completed forming a virtuous circle. Peter clarified by saying objectives are what you want and policies are how you get it.

Decision. Have a separate meeting after 28 February (last day for questionnaires to be accepted) to formulate our philosophy.

40.6 Questionnaire
    a. Latest on distribution
The delivery plan devised at our last meeting has only been met piecemeal due to Christmas and bad weather. Manor Estate and John O’Gaunts not yet targeted.

Peter asked Stewart Golton how many copies he still has but Stewart did not have a definitive answer. The same was true of other members who hold supplies.

There appeared some confusion over areas already covered, but we will continue to distribute as per previous plan and put links to the online questionnaire on both Tenants and Residents Association and St. George’s Facebook pages.

Action - Peter will begin to analyse the questionnaires we have already received and put an article in the Record reminding people to hand in their Questionnaires.

Action -  Links to online questionnaire to be put on Facebook pages and in the Rothwell Record.
(The cut off date for receipt of completed questionnaires has been set for last day February 2017 as stated in item 40.4)


40.7 LCC documentation/consultations etc.
a. Core Strategy
Already mentioned in 40.5

b. Leeds Ward Boundary Review
There will be very little adjustment made. Councillor Golton pointed out that where population growth is anticipated by 2021 some land will be developed for dwellings.

c. Site Allocation Plan – Transport Evaluation
Roy had emailed members with information regarding the Leeds Transport Investment Programme, also information from a review of transport issues which lists the Wood Lane junction as ranking as 51 in the City's list of the top 70 hotspots for traffic congestion.  The information regarding traffic congestion may be five years out of date. Roy will attempt to find out more information.

d. Other issues
There was discussion about a recent article in the Telegraph about the building of new garden towns and villages, none within our area. Roy mentioned a
proposed development in the NE of Leeds on Parlington Estates of 5,000
properties, the first stage will be 1850 properties and this will be included in the SAP submission to the inspector.
   
40.8 Theme Group: Environment – Landscape and Greenspaces
    a. Community Involvement Initiative: Community Work Days
Anne told the Committee she had been in touch with Glen Gorner Natural
Environment  Manager, LCC Parks & Countryside. Anne asked him if the vacant position of Conservation Officer had been filled and whether we would still have the
LCC support on future Community Work days in Haighside Wood. Glen said yes.
A new Conservation Officer had been appointed, her name is Jodie
Forrester and when she has settled and become familiar with the areas then
we could arrange another work day. Anne has proposed a Saturday in March
but this won’t be decided until she has met Jodie sometime in February.

b. Ecology Report
Peter said there was £800 left of the funding he had obtained for the Habitat
Surveys. Peter said this money might have to go back by the end of March.
Anne asked if it could be used for improvement to the Ecology of Haighside
Wood. Peter said he would look into it.

40.9 Technical Support requirements
Peter has spoken to David Gluck, Consultant. He is willing to come to one of our meetings to talk with us.  There will be no cost to us. The decision was taken to invite David to one of our meetings.

 Action - Peter will arrange meeting.

40.10 Web Site and Communications
Nothing of note to report.

40.11 Local Issues
a.  Bell Hill/Wood Lane Highway Changes
Carl reported back from talking to Nicholas Hunt (Highways) who had said no formal risk assessment had been carried out regarding the problems caused by parking on Wood Lane. The vehicles are now being parked on Low Shops and St Georges.

Cllr. Golton reported that two possible short term measures were some extra parking added to the access road, and a piece of land to the North of the junction be temporarily opened up for parking as the owner is amenable to this.  The Stourton Park & Ride is a long term solution.

b.  Council Offices
Peter continues the process of filling in Historical England application for the Council Offices to be designated as a listed building under the category ‘disposal of public assets’.

He asked Cllr. Golton if any progress had been made with the CivicTrust Blue Plaque Scheme. Cllr. Golton reported that the Trust had shown very little interest and also there was a cost attached to having one.
        Action – Peter will continue working to complete the application.

c. Rothwell Conservation Area
No further discussion.

d. Other issues
None

40.12 Planning Issues
a. Barraclough Yard
Not heard anything regarding the wall.

b.  6 Oulton Lane
Letter of objection has been put in to Planning.

c. Aldi Variation
Covered in 40.3

d.  13 Carlton Lane
There had been some objections due to number of houses on the site.

e.  Other planning applications
None discussed.

40.13 Any Other Business
None.

40.13 Date and Time of Next Meeting
The next meeting will be held on Monday 13th February 2017 at Haigh Road Centre at 7.00pm.

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM
NOTES OF STEERING GROUP COMMITTEE MEETING NO 38
7 November 2016 Haigh Road Community Centre

PresentAngela Kellett, JohnMcGrory, Anne German, Sandra Thompson, Roy Garside, John McVeigh, Richard Walker, Carl Gledhill, Peter Ellis, Colin Bell, Craig Townsend, Ian Smith.

38.1 Welcome, Introduction and ApologiesMembers were welcomed to the meeting. Apologies were received from Karen Bruce, Stewart Golton, David Nagle, Robert McClements.

38.2 Approval of the notes of the previous meeting held on 3rd October 2016The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings after the correction of the paragraph referring 13 Carlton Lane. Peter will redraft this.
Apropos the notes, Roy mentioned that we need to have a conclusion to each item.

38.3 Matters arising from the notes of the previous meetingPeter Indicated that matters arising from the previous meeting would be addressed within the agenda items to be discussed.

38.4 The Forum and communication with members
a.    Response to letter updateCarl reported that there had been good ‘click and open’ of the emails sent out but no responses received. Although he had not had time to check for responses since our last meeting he was of the opinion that the situation would not have changed in the interim. Carl will check and confirm if any more replies have been received.

Mr Smith said he had responded positively to the letter but had heard nothing further. This prompted discussion of how to manage our email and online communications with members more effectively as people who respond but do not receive feedback get disillusioned.

Action decided. John McGrory will regularly access the Forum’s Gmail account and monitor emails received. Carl will inform him of the access password. Received emails will be acknowledged and if anyone has asked a question then that will be forwarded to Peter or Roy who will provide a response.

38.5 The PlanPeter and Roy had previously discussed the need to get structure into the plan as we move forward.  Roy bought the previous Neighbourhood Plan Task Schedule as an aid to illustrate points where the Forum was not getting to grips with the production of the Neighbourhood Plan.

Roy reminded us that our constitution requires the Steering Committee to present a report to the Forum on a 6 monthly basis. The headings on the existing Task Schedule were examined and discussed. A new Task Schedule needs to be produced as previously set deadlines have not been achieved.

38.6 QuestionnaireQuestionnaires collected from Rothwell Hub, Parans and the Youth Service at Windmill Youth Club were handed to Peter.  Responses from electronic questionnaires, which had previously been analysed by Peter, were discussed.

The committee agreed there is a need to finish the questionnaire process, ‘draw a line’ under it then analyse the responses we have received. Analysis can refer to the ‘percentage of respondents’.

Actions decided. A final push to distribute questionnaires and inform residents will include

a. asking Rothwell Record to print an informative article
including links to web based questionnaire.

b. distribute paper questionnaires to areas not yet covered
Some areas still need questionnaires to be delivered. Volunteers for distribution were John McVeigh - Royds Lane and Swithens, John McGrory & Sandra Thompson - Manor Estate, Craig Townsend – Stone Brig. Peter to talk to Stewart Golton to ascertain where deliveries have already been made and then get back to volunteers to effect delivery.

c. devise electronic questionnaire if possible
Carl will ascertain whether the Survey program can convert our questionnaire into a working electronic questionnaire. If this can be achieved a link to access this questionnaire will be emailed to our existing circulation group and also put on our web blog and associated web sites of local groups to increase participation.  This process can be given a trial by sending link to Forum members.

d. information and links to be added to the Forum web blog.
Sandra to add information about the questionnaires to the blog, and the link from Carl if and when available.

38.7 Theme Group: Environment – Landscape and Greenspaces
a.    Green Space Alliance and associated issuesRoy brought this organisation to our attention. He will look up how to join and if there is a membership fee. The Yorkshire Greenspace Alliance web was also mentioned in the discussion and is a useful link to keep up to date with current issues.  Roy thought we may be behind with regard to current changes to policy on development.
Roy also circulated a report from Airborough Neighbourhood Forum about the Leeds Housing  Policy stating that Leeds City Council does not have a 5 year land supply for its 70,000 net housing target. LCC has recently been refused leave to appeal against these judgments. Therefore the Council is now very close to having its housing core strategy policies being declared out of date.

b.    Community Involvement InitiativeAnne said that the first Community Work Day on the 1st of October was successful and she would like to hold more. Now the group are left without a member of LCC to help on these days. So she had emailed Glen Gorner but he was away so Anne directed the email to John Stevens Evironmental Officer in Conservation Department and Bob Buckenham Rights of Way Officer. Anne stated in her email she would like another work day on the 19th November. The reason for the email is to ask the views of John and Bob on whether we could hold a work day without a member of LCC for Health and Safety reasons. There hasn’t been a reply from them up to now.

Roy suggested to Anne that she e mails Karen Bruce and ask for her help.

Action Decided. Anne said yes she would do this.

c.   Ecology ReportPeter has received the invoice for ecology report and will pay it. There is approximately £900 left from the grant for the ecology report and general administration. The Forum needs to decide how to use this before the end of the financial year. The remainder could be used for technical and advisory support.

38.8 Housing Target Paper (White Paper motion in the name of Councillor Andrew Carter)Roy had emailed members with information about the above White Paper motion and also Stewart Golton’s reply stating his agreement with the aims. The paper is concerned with inflated housing number targets, the 5 year land supply and the control developers have over housing delivery.
Action decided. The Committee agreed to inform our local labour councillors that we hope they will also support the proposals, and a formal letter from the Forum urging their support will be written by Peter.

38.9 Other Theme Groups
a.    Joint working with adjacent ForumsTaking note of the progress of Oulton & Woodlesford Neighbourhood Forum who have used the services of David Gluck, Planning Consultant.  We may also benefit from the help of a consultant to suitably redraft documents, give advice on processes we need to implement and provide focus to pull our plan together.  Roy will find out more. Peter would like to go to the next Oulton/Woodlesford Neighbourhood Forum meeting to meet David Gluck with a view to him giving us Technical Support with our plan.

38.10 Technical Support requirements.Peter has written to David Gluck.

38.11 Website and ComunicationsDiscussion on how easy it is to obtain the Forum Website. Several people at the meeting tested on Google and had no problem accessing the site which came near the top of the page.

Sandra said she would make more of an effort to put links onto the web to direct users to relevant sites of information.

38.12 Local Issues
a. Bell Hill/Wood Lane Highway ChangesThere hasn’t been any further action on the parking on Wood Lane. Carl said he had been to a meeting at Valley Park with Stewart Golton and there has been no decision made to increase parking spaces on the park to alleviate the situation. The management don’t seem interested. The residents on St George’s have been emailing LCC (Cllr. Lewis) about the parking situation and stating the difficulty they are having in getting out of the entrance of St Georges.

Action Wood Lane Parking.  Peter asked Carl if he would obtain a risk assessment from LCC.    

b. Council OfficesPeter has researched criteria with Historic England and he will make an application with them for the Council Offices to be designated as a listed building.

Sandra and Angela have been inside the Council Offices and Council Chamber with Cllr. Karen Bruce and Simon Bulmer of the Rothwell and District Historical Society.  Photographs of dignitaries, items of furniture and documents etc. are being added to an inventory. Mr Bulmer took photographs. When the key is found Mr Bulmer will take photographs from within the clock tower. LCC current plan is that the significant artifacts will be removed from the building which, according to Stewart Golton, has been put into void management.

c. Other issues
    Nothing to report.

38.13 Planning Issues
a. 6, Oulton LaneMr Smith presented information about planned development of 2 three story houses at 6 Oulton Lane. He provided the meeting with printouts of plans from Leeds City Council Planning. He is of the opinion that the proposed building materials and the height of the houses are out of keeping with the surroundings, and that the vehicular access is inadequate, and inconsistent with previous rulings. The proposed detached houses have roofs that will be 1 story higher than the existing buildings, and built out of materials which are incompatible with existing houses. Because of the lie of the land these tall buildings will be seen from a distance and are not compatible with the existing 'Street View’.
Mr Smith feels that in the Rothwell Conservation Area this development is not in character with its surroundings either in style or scale.

Mr Smith asked the Forum to object on the grounds these houses are not in keeping with the Conservation area.

Action decided. Peter agreed and said he would get in touch with the Conservation Officer at LCC and Veronica Hinchcliffe-Walker Planning Officer for Rothwell.

38.14 Any Other BusinessNone.

38.15 Date and Time of Next Meeting.The next meeting will be held on Monday 12 December 2016 at Haigh Road Centre at 7.00pm.



ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM
NOTES OF STEERING GROUP COMMITTEE MEETING NO 37
3rd October 2016 Haigh Road Community Centre

Present
Angela Kellett, JohnMcGrory, Anne German, Sandra Thompson, Roy Garside, John McVeigh, Richard Walker, Carl Gledhill, Peter Ellis, Colin Bell, Yvonne Bell.

37.1 Welcome, Introduction and Apologies
Members were welcomed to the meeting. Apologies were received from Karen Bruce, Stewart Golton, David Nagle.

37.2 Approval of the notes of the previous meeting held on 8th August 2016
The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings with the addition of Cllr. Karen Bruce to the list of attendees.

37.3 Matters Arising from the notes of the previous meeting
Indicated that matters arising from the previous meeting would be addressed within the agenda items to be discussed.

37.4 The Forum and communication with members (letter etc.): Response Update
Discussion on the value of using the email database held on Gmail to inform people of what is currently happening within the Forum and extend an invitation to participate at our next meeting. A positive and direct approach, coupled with information on an emotive issue affecting the community may motivate attendance.  A link could be made to the minutes on RNF blog, which could bullet point the 3 most important points of the meeting. If issue with publishing minutes before they are accepted then the 3 bullet points alone could be published quickly in the interim.

The point was made that we had a duty as a steering committee to inform people of the facts of what is happening in Rothwell and what action we are taking with the aim of fostering interest and commitment and dispelling rumour.

Carl will update the information on numbers interested in being on Committee or attending our meetings, but suspects the figures reported previously will have changed little. Generally agreed a more proactive approach was needed to increase and maintain membership.

37.5 Theme Group: Environment – Landscape and Greenspaces.
a.  Community Involvement Initiative
At Haighside Wood Community Event Day held on Saturday 1st October 12 people attended including Joe Coles, Conservation Officer, Leeds City Council. It was a very successful day clearing scrub from the woodland. Anne suggested that the opinion was we hold event days monthly. Anne will notify at a later date.

Anne informed the members that Joe Coles, Conservation Officer, Leeds City Council has added Haighside Wood to the South Leeds Green Infrastructure Corridor map.

b.  Ecology Report
Anne told the forum members that we had received the phase one habitat survey. Anne is pleased about this as this is the first step towards management of the woodland.


37.6 Other Theme Groups 
a. Joint working with adjacent Forums
Peter again reiterated the idea that common themes might be tackled jointly. He was still awaiting response from the Chair of the Carlton Forum who was to write to Rothwell and Oulton to table this idea. Peter will persue this matter.

37.7 Collation of data for Plan (things that can be done prior to objectives formulation)
Peter reiterated the points stated at the last meeting i.e. aspects contained within neighbourhood plan that could be progressed without having the Plan objectives and policies in place. Suggested attendees could look at documents on web to see the sorts of information commonly provided.  Then when main spine of Plan in place, the peripheral information would be ready to attach/insert as appropriate to the objectives derived from the questionnaire responses. Walton near Wakefield forum is a good example.

Simon Bulmer of Rothwell and District Historical Society may be able to give us a potted history. Sandra to ask him at the next Historical Society meeting. Peter has produced a short history of Carlton for the Carlton Forum Plan which could act as inspiration.

37.8 Questionnaire 
a. Outcome of distribution process and next steps.
There are still some areas to be covered. Stonebrig and Windmill Chase. Also Elmroyd, Ashroyd and Oakroyd. Peter to contact Stewart Golton to clarify which areas he has kindly covered for us.

A substantial number of completed questionnaires have been collected from the Community Hub and Parans mini market.

There is a case for distributing questionnaires to as many groups as possible and it was suggested that traders in Rothwell should be given a copy.

When the views recorded in the reply box on the questionnaire are analysed, the main objectives extracted will need to be put to the public to test their validity.

Carl will look at the set-up on Surveymonkey to ascertain if information/data collected can be easily extracted, e.g. as a spreadsheet and will also if it can be used to analyse paper replies as well as any online replies. Peter to email Carl the login details.

37.9 Technical Support requirements
Contact David Cove to find out how he got support, and also the role of the facilitator. These technical supports are free so we need to take advantage where necessary. Peter will email members a list of the support packages available. Anne offered to contact David Cove.

37.10 Web Site and Communications
Facebook is probably a more appropriate method of communication. The blog only allows people to view and not to comment and at the moment does not have much content. One member said they never look at it.

37.11 Local Issues 
a. Bell Hill/Wood Lane Highway Changes
Vehicles parking on both sides of the road still causing major problems. Traffic observed at a standstill the length from Low Shops to end of Wood Lane.  The road becomes too narrow for passing traffic.

An article from the Rothwell Record was brought in detailing Cllr. Stewart Golton’s interaction with Cllr. Richard Lewis about local residents facing danger and inconvenience due to parking by Leeds Valley Park office workers displaced onto Wood Lane and surrounding areas.

Dismay was expressed at the views of Cllr. Lewis, more so as he is involved with the Development Plan. If this is the attitude then what hope have we?

Highways observe that if there is a hazard people slow down and this is perceived as a safety feature! Nothing will be done to ameliorate the situation until accidents occur, if then. Anecdotal comment that one accident may have already occurred as damaged car was seen being taken away.

Peter said he would write to Cllr. Lewis to ask for a risk assessment, since he had made the statement referred to in the Rothwell Record article, and ask him to clarify what the road safety benefits are.

The view was generally expressed that all three councillors should be fighting this and it appears that there is only one doing so at the moment.
 
b. Rothwell Council Offices
Concern expressed over closure of Rothwell Council Offices and Council Chamber within. Peter to go ahead with proposing the building to be listed. Sandra hoping to get permission to view interior and be updated on what is being done to log contents and record architectural features for posterity.
 
c. Rothwell Conservation Area
Peter has sent letter to Mr P. Ward, Team Leader, Conservation LCC on behalf of the Rothwell Neighbourhood Forum expressing our increasing concern that the Rothwell Conservation Area, which is the subject of an LCC authored and approved Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan, is not being seriously accounted for in respect of recent planning applications and resulting developments. A copy has been emailed to members with Mr Ward’s interim reply.

Angela spoke about the past Aldermen and the photographs in the Council Chamber. Reportedly Karen Bruce had been in touch with their relations to ask where they would like the photographs displayed. Blackburn Hall was suggested but nothing has been done about this at the moment.
 
d. Other issues
None
 
37.12 Planning Issues 
a. Barraclough Yard
No further information. Peter has previously submitted views to the council in respect of the Landscaping Plan.

b. Oulton Lane
No progress
 
c. 13 Carlton Lane
Builders are the same as those who developed the Carlton Lane School building which was agreed to be a sensitive development.
   
d. Marsh Street Restaurant 
There has been some work done at the unit (skip seen outside).
 
e. Commercial Street Café Bar 
No progress.
 
f. Martial Arts Academy, Meynell Avenue 
Parking an issue, and may be exacerbated when there are  Church functions. Is causing people using mobility scooters to have to weave in and  around vehicles.
 
g. Other planning applications
 None raised.

37.13 Any Other Business 
Decision to change the meetings to second Monday in the Month to                facilitate attendance of councillors.

37.14 Date and Time of Next Meeting
The next meeting will be held on Monday 14 November 2016 at the Haigh Road Centre at 7.00pm
 

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM
NOTES OF STEERING GROUP COMMITTEE MEETING NO 36

ON 8TH August 2016 Haigh Road Community Centre.

Present: Richard Walker, Angela Kellett, Sandra Thompson, Anne German, Colin Bell, Carl Gledhill, John McGrory, Robert McClements, Peter Ellis. Cllr. Karen Bruce.

36.1 Welcome, Introduction and Apologies 
Members were welcomed to the meeting Apologies were received from Roy Garside, Graham Fox, James O’Neill and John McVeigh.

36.2 Approval of the notes of the previous meeting held on the 11th July 2016 
The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

36.3 Matters Arising from the notes of the previous meeting 
It was indicated that matters arising from the previous meeting would be addressed within the agenda items to be discussed.

36.4 The Forum and communication with members (letter etc.)
a) Letter to Members 
Carl reported on the number of people who had at least viewed the emailed letter to members. Of the 136 people contacted, 109 emails had been successfully delivered. The opening rate was in the order of 57%. Two people had unsubscribed. Carl hoped to report on responses at the next meeting

36.5 Theme Group Environment- Landscape and Greenspaces
a) Funding Application
Peter reported that the funding application had been approved (circa £1925) and that updated quotations from the ecologist had been pursued in the hope of confirming the commission. The sum also included some administration costs (approx. £425)

b) Haighside Wood 
Anne had met with Joe Coles (Conservation Officer LCC) on the 18th July to further discuss the Wood and was working with Graham and Richard from the Victoria Allotment. There was also discussion relating to previous events and the fact that the Wood was not considered a Greenspace and a re-recognition of the comments originally made by Heather Sudgate at the Council, which were related to the fact that proposed site allocation was the dominant factor in not allowing greenspace designation.

c) Community Involvement 
It was hoped that an initiative also involving local children who were interested in conservation could be implemented. Karen Bruce had also attended the meeting and had indicated that she would work with local schools to promote matters. There was much discussion about raising the profile of the wood via the web site and use of leaflets etc

36.6 Other Theme Groups
Peter reiterated the idea that common themes within the adjacent forum designated areas might be tackled jointly e.g. transport, education and health. The Chair of the Carlton Forum was intending to write to Rothwell and Oulton to table this idea, but as yet had not done so.

36.7 Collation of data for the plan
Peter indicated that there were lots of aspects contained within neighbourhood plans that could be progressed without having the Plan objectives and policies in place and suggested that attendees could look at the many documents on the web to see the sorts of information commonly provided e.g. background, history photographs, maps etc. By way of illustration Peter said that he had just about completed a short history of Carlton for the Carlton Forum Plan. It was said that we could set out what we want for Rothwell and then ask Simon Bulmer from the Historical Society to assist. Peter hoped he would be able to put together a framework for this. By doing some of this sort of background work
Peter’s view was that we might be able to configure the document more quickly by the time policies etc were identified.
36.8 Questionnaire
a) Distribution Arrangements 
Colin would distribute questionnaires at Haighside which all agreed was very helpful and Stewart Galton offered to distribute questionnaires at the same time as his leaflets were sent out. This was extremely well received by all and Peter thanked Stewart for this. It would make such a difference to the initiative. (Post meeting note : questionnaires were delivered to Stewart and it was noted that some areas would still need to be dealt with separately as these had already been done in terms of Stewart’s leaflets. Eg Manor Estate and Stone Brig)

36.9 Technical Support update
a) Further Technical Package bids 
The question of technical support was discussed and it was noted that one of the packages available related to “Facilitation”. Peter would try to find out the basis of the Oulton and Woodlesford appointment.

36.10 Web Site and Communications 
Sandra did not have anything to report and continued to include meeting minutes etc on the site.

36.11 Local Issues
a) Bell Hill/Woodlane Highway changesThis matter was discussed and alternative parking provision was reiterated by Carl in respect of the business park. It was not entirely clear who had taken responsibility for on-site parking as the occupation of the site and the use of the site had changed since its inception resulting in greatly increased car use. Stewart said that this presented the Council with particular challenges. The present solution was a stop gap initiative solution, but a long term vision was required that properly addressed the health and wellbeing aspects, while resolving the very obvious highway and access issues

b) Rothwell Council Offices 
There is much concern as to the future for perhaps the most iconic building in the Community. Its loss as a community facility is of great concern as its importance to the heritage of Rothwell. Peter was looking at the Listed Buildings situation. Discussion also revolved around community assets and sense of place and mixed use schemes.

c) Rothwell Conservation Area 
Peter indicated he had written the Phil Ward, the Leeds City Council Conservation Team Leader and had brought to attention a number of issues relating back to Barraclough Yard, Aldi as examples of difficulties and had outlined concerns allied to the Council Offices and other future possible developments in the Conservation Area. The basic thrust of the letter was that we expected much more care and attention to be expended in respect of the area when applications were submitted and that the importance of the Area should not be an afterthought (or in some instances not thought about at all e.g. 38, Royds Lane). The Management Plan was also referred to. Peter said he would copy the letter to attendees and apologised for not having done so previously

d) Other Issues 
No other issues were discussed

36.12 Planning Issues
a)Barraclough Yard 
The latest correspondence was discussed (Post meeting note: Peter did submit views to the Council in respect of the Landscaping Plan)

b) Oulton Lane 
Perhaps wrongly nothing had been submitted in respect of this application.

c) 38 Royds Lane 
The extension to this property was not contested as the majority of the proposal was at the rear of the building. It was nevertheless disappointing that the Leeds Conservation Team had not provided any views.

d) Marsh Street restaurant 
The concern allied to this development revolved around parking and the proposals for parking at the front of the establishment and the impact on the pavement and public access (brought to attention previously when the building was Stephen Ward’s shop)

e)Commercial Street Cafe Bar 
Peter brought an example of am application drawing to the meeting which was singularly unimpressive and it was hard to believe that anyone could submit information of this standard in respect of a planning application. The concern was that if the care lavished on the application reflected the actual initiative, this would be worrying (especially recognising the extent of the Conservation Area and the quality of the Commercial Street streetscape)

f) Martial Arts Academy (Meynell Avenue) 
The concern here was that the proposed and retrospective application site did abut the churchyard and was in the Conservation Area. Parking was also a possible issue. No clear view emerged as to whether objections should be made.

g) Other Planning Applications 
No other applications were discussed in detail

36.13 Any Other Business 
No record of any comment was made

33.14 Date and time of Next meeting 
The next meeting will be held on Monday 12th September NOW 3RD OCTOBER at the Haigh Road Centre
 

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM
NOTES OF STEERING GROUP COMMITTEE MEETING NO 35 ON 11TH July 2016
Haigh Road Community Centre.
Present: Richard Walker, Angela Kellett, Mary Fleet, Sandra Thompson, Colin Bell, Carl Gledhill, John McGrory, Roy Garside, Peter Ellis.
35.1 Welcome, Introduction and Apologies
Members were welcomed to the meeting Apologies were received from, Cllr David Nagle and John McVeigh.
35.2 Approval of the notes of the previous meeting held on the 6th June 2016
The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.
34.3 Matters Arising from the notes of the previous meeting
It was indicated that matters arising from the previous meeting would be addressed within the agenda items to be discussed.
35.4 The Forum and communication with members
a) Letter to Members
Carl would sent out a test email to the members of the Committee before proceeding with the letter distribution to members (all using email Chimp). It was hoped that there would be some response. The letter did make a plea for more members to assist the Forum particularly if they had particular expertise and there was some discussion as to whether this was entirely correct as it might exclude others.
b) Email arrangements (email chimp etc)
The letter would be distributed using email Chimp as indicated in 34.3b
35.5 Site Allocation Plan UPDATE (particular reference to Haighside)
The intention at this meeting had been to run through the history of the situation allied to Haighside and to that end other potentially interested members had been particularly circulated in respect of the meeting. The situation was reviewed and Roy highlighted the fact that the Council had responded to the questions posed by the Forum though not perhaps entirely addressing our concerns. A recent example of this was a letter that had been sent to Karen Bruce by David Feeney, Head of Strategic Planning (City Development) indicating that, while it was not a legal requirement to do so, representations allied to the Site Allocations Plan consultation were now published on line.
There would be another Development Plan Panel meeting on the 19th July, but it was clear from the information package circulated to members of the Panel that the question of infrastructure was largely ignored or in the case of the New Generation Transport scheme the main suggestion seemed to be to exclude reference to it and effectively undermine its importance in respect of development schemes where it was previously deemed to be a fundamental requirement e.g. Haighside.
Lack of infrastructure planning could be illustrated with an extreme example in Garforth. One of the housing sites in Garforth was supposed to accommodate 5000houses and yet there was nothing proposed in terms of infrastructure.
The Aire Valley Development Plan was mentioned and it was noted that during the last consultation it received very few objections and seemed to be largely ignored by the local population and that was probably because other parties, like Rothwell, were too focussed on their own areas.
The philosophy of the Council and the Development Plan Panel seemed to revolve around leaving the decisions to the Inspector. The need for an infrastructure plan that properly addresses development initiatives is something that does not seem to exist in detail.
It was suggested that to ensure that the Inspector was in receipt of all the correspondence highlighting Forum concerns, it might be sensible to put together a document package together with a covering letter and make this directly available to the Inspector. Peter indicated that Cllr Galton had suggested contacting the Inspector direct made more sense than sending information to the Council link person.(Peter had met Cllr Galton at a Carlton Forum meeting).
It was also noted by members of the Committee that in the report to the Development Plan Panel there was scant reference as to why certain conclusions had been reached i.e. why a stance of “No change” was recommended for some sites such as Haighside, even in the light of quite a substantial number of objections with few respondents approving the proposals. In terms of Greenspace, both Haighside Wood and Swithens Plantation were not designated as Greenspace, but there was no explanation. St George’s peripheral tree-scape though was designated, but reasons were not very clear. It was felt that this was something that should perhaps be requested.
It was also noted that the question of “Statement of Community Involvement” was not included in the documentation made available to the Development Plan Panel even though the Rothwell Forum had made comment on this in terms of its soundness and compliance.
35.6 Theme Group: Environment-Landscape and Greenspace
a) Funding Application
Peter indicated that he was working on the application for funds to try and allow the ecology survey at Haighside to proceed. Roy thought that we should still also ask for administrative funds to underpin the dissemination of documents to households in the Designated Area e.g. further questionnaire or confirmation of objectives. Peter said he would include this in the application.
Peter also reiterated the Technical Support aspect of any application. This was something that was free, but was limited to defined packages, which he outlined briefly. Thinking about the service that Oulton and Woodlesford had employed, Peter thought that this could perhaps relate to the package entitled “Facilitation” and would try to contact David Cove to find out. In any event a request for technical support would be a further application as the main immediate effort was to instigate the ecology commission on the basis of the updated quotations that had now been received Failing that it would be a question of finding out what the brief for the Oulton and Woodlesford commission was, and then making a further grant application on this basis.
b) Haighside Wood
There would be a meeting with Joe Coles (Conservation Officer LCC) on the 18th July to further discuss the Wood and what could be done to better promote access and to recognise the condition of the footpath.
35.7 Other Theme Groups
Peter referred to a discussion that had taken place at the Carlton Forum meeting where it was suggested that some of the common themes within the adjacent forum designated areas might be tackled jointly eg transport, education and health. There was little to be gained by having a different emphasis in each Neighbourhood Plan and there needed to be some symmetry in what was proposed under these headings.
35.8 Questionnaire
a) Distribution
It seemed that the only way of dealing with the question of distribution was to physically take the documents to each of the 6000 homes in Rothwell. Peter indicated that Cllr Nagle had provide him with some plans showing how document distribution is normally dealt with when handing out political pamphlets. Colin said that he would distribute questionnaires around Haighside and Peter let him have some questionnaires. Peter said he would confirm with the library again that they were happy to receive responses.( they had previously been content with this when Sandra spoke to them, but were a little vague when contacted more recently)
35.9 Technical Support update
a) Further Technical Package bids
This was referred to in 35.6a. A further technical support bid would be the subject of a further application to Locality when it had been decided what the basis should be.
b) Grange proposal
Peter indicated he had written again to AECOM to try to get a response on the option, but had not heard anything. This was of some concern as initial contact had been positive. However it had to be admitted that the Council’s response to options other than their preferred SAP proposals did not seem to be yielding any other view except “No Change” and this applied in all HMCAs, not just Outer South.
35.10 Web Site and Communications
Sandra did not have anything to report and continued to include meeting minutes etc on the site.
34.11 Local Issues
a) Bell Hill/Woodlane Highway changes
Carl indicated that there has been dialogue between Arla Foods and Local Councillors and that there might be a solution to the problem and the ultimate creation of more spaces .It was suggested that Karen Bruce or David Nagle be contacted to establish if there is indeed a solution that would resolve the existing less than satisfactory parking arrangements which have seen lines of cars gradually migrating up Wood Lane ( following the Instigation of double yellow lines to just beyond the Garden Centre entrance.)
b)Oulton Lane
Peter said he had not thus far put forward any objection to the proposal to remove a 17th Century barn at the rear of the building in question. The main concern was that the people who should recognise that this building was the oldest in Rothwell and that it was located in the Conservation Area were the LCC Conservation Team and a letter from Phil Ward on the planning web site was somewhat vague. It is noted that an application was made to remove this building previously and it was turned down. If it was important then it must be important now, one could argue. Peter would review if there was a need to make comment. (There was little doubt that the barn building was in a rather dishevelled condition)
c) 38, Royds Lane
It was indicated that this house was formerly occupied by John Batty the author of the book published in 1877 entitled “The History of Rothwell” and was specifically illustrated in the Conservation Management Plan. Peter felt that the rear elevation adjustments were perhaps acceptable, but there was also a small single storey extension which he was less content about. Peter had thus far not made any representation but there was no objection to him doing so.
d) Other planning applications
A further application on Oulton Lane was referred to and this related to removal of trees. Peter said he would make a response in respect of this, particularly in terms of the Section 211 requirements i.e. trees in Conservation Areas where TPO’s do not exist (post meeting note: there is some suggestion on the application form that the trees are subject to a TPO)
The long awaited Barraclough Yard drawing revealed that there would now be some element of tree planting on the site, but how these would be preserved, bearing in mind most of the trees were within the curtilage of particular properties is unclear. The trees are indigenous species and not ornamentals. The southern boundary still utilises a fence.
33.13 Date and time of Next meeting
The next meeting will be held on Monday 8th August at the Haigh Road Centre at 7.00pm

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM
NOTES OF STEERING GROUP COMMITTEE MEETING NO 33 ON 9TH May 2016. Haigh Road Community Centre. 

Present: Richard Walker, Carl Gledhill, Craig Townsend, Ruth Webster, Angela Kellett, Sandra Thompson, John McGrory, Robert McClements, Peter Ellis.

33.1 Welcome, Introduction and Apologies 
Members were welcomed to the meeting and in particular Robert McClements who was attending a Forum meeting for the first time and would be speaking about the Grange and Ruth Webster who was also attending the meeting for the first time.
Apologies were received from Roy Garside, Anne German, Cllr David Nagle, Cllr Karen Bruce and John McVeigh

33.2 Approval of the notes of the previous meeting held on the 4th April 2016 
The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.

33.3 Matters Arising from the notes of the previous meeting 
It was indicated that matters arising were effectively accommodated within the agenda items to be discussed.

33.4 The Forum and communication with members  
a) Letter to Members
Peter presented the letter he had put together for other committee members to comment on. It was generally the view of the Committee that the letter was satisfactory and could be made available to the membership. The letter would need to include the email address, but did try to provide some historical context and information about future aims and attempted to request if any of the members might be able to provide specific help. One or two modifications were made to the letter related to required membership responses and it was also felt prudent to make available the date of the next meeting. (Post meeting note: this will now be likely to be the July meeting)
b) Email arrangements
Peter said he would try to identify the Forum email address (thought to be a gmail address). Carl indicated that one method of sending out the letter to members was to use “email chimp” and that in so doing it should be possible to even understand how much uptake in terms of opening of emails was occurring, as well as sending this out to the large number of addresses(circa 170). Peter said he would provide Carl with the schedule of member email addresses, the questionnaire (which it was also hoped could be included in this exercise) and the letter itself.

33.5 Theme Groups
a) Heritage 
The meeting discussed the comments made by Simon Bulmer at the previous meeting and hoped that he would be able to provide assistance with the Heritage aspect of the Neighbourhood Plan, even though he was perhaps more interested in the medieval history of Rothwell than its Victorian or Edwardian era

b) Environment- Landscapes and Greenspaces 
In the absence of Anne this item was not discussed in any detail

33.6 Site Allocation Plan
a) Grange proposal
Robert McClement indicated that he was the part owner of the Grange and had discussed the possibilities of the site in a development context with the other part owner i.e. the Dobson Family. He indicated that he had been aware of the strength of feeling in respect of the site adjacent Haighside Wood. The new site was also not accounted for in the SHLAA. Mr. McClements asked about the AECOM report and wondered if the site could be looked at as part of the appraisal. Peter apologised to the meeting for not circulating this report and indicated that his hand had been forced to provide some immediate comments in respect of the report before it could formally be released and accepted by Locality. He would circulate the report to attendees before the next meeting including Mr McClements. The meeting felt that the site was worthy of further investigation though it was pointed out that it suffered from some of the disadvantages relating to the “St Georges” site particularly in respect of the A61. The site had been put forward by Mr McClements in the last LCC consultation, but the outcome of this suggestion was as yet unknown. Mr McClements did indicate that the site had not been as yet subject to a detailed assessment or option appraisal

b) Any further updates 
Peter ran through a few of the aspects of recent Development Plan Panel papers and particularly the aspect that related to major housebuilders and some of the statistics allied to consultation returns contained in those papers.

33.7 Questionnaire
a)Distribution
Peter was able to confirm that £165 had been spent on copying the questionnaire (6000copies on 100g paper) and that the next task related to distribution. It was likely that monies would have to be returned to Locality due to time scales and therefore if payment were needed to achieve distribution this might have to wait for a reapplication for funds. He indicated that his discussion with Beverley Ward(from Stephen Ward’s shop) had identified that it was not possible to link the delivery with the Rothwell Advertiser, primarily as this went out to a much larger area than the Forum boundary and all at once. It was therefore not possible for the forms to be delivered to just part of the area covered. It was possible to include the form in the advertiser as previously reported (two pages for £360), so this might be another avenue. It would also be possible to include an article in the Record to advertise the form. However the method of distribution might come down to committee members actively progressing “door to door” delivery. It was also clear that the library etc. might need to be contacted again just prior to distribution occurring in whatever manner this was achieved. It was suggested that Royal Mail might be another avenue for distribution that could be investigated i.e. pricing structure. It was thought the cost might be £65/1000 deliveries?

b) Electronic Survey 
Peter indicated that the question of using an “electronic” method of delivering the survey need to be concluded. The form was now considerably simpler than it had been (not least that it was contained on a single page). It was either a question using check/radio buttons incorporated into the form or preferably the use of a tried and tested survey system such as Survey Monkey. Peter said that in reconfiguring the questionnaire, he had taken on board some of the advisory statements on the Survey Monkey website which he hoped would make the form compatible with overall process.

33.8 Technical Support Update 
Aspects of the AECOM report were discussed in 32.6a. However following the distribution of the report it was anticipated that the matter might be referred to again in the next meeting

33.9 Web site and communications 
This matter was discussed as part of 32.5b

33.10 Web Site and Communications 
After some discussion it was agreed that it would be best always to include ratified site meeting minutes on the web site, but that indication of the next meeting could be provided to avoid the delay in imparting this information (that would otherwise result). Sandra was having some difficulties with the website, but hoped to overcome these issues. The question of links to other sites was discussed particularly the LCC site and the various documents associated with the SAP and also connectivity to other groups when links in “none website terms” had been established e.g. some link had now been made with Rothwell Historical Society

33.11 Planning Issues
a) Barraclough Yard –Latest situation
Victoria Hinchcliife Walker had replied to Peter’s letter on behalf of the Forum and indicated that the question of landscaping was being relooked at. The danger was that the Forum would not be actively involved in commenting on that process despite the assurance that the Forum would be contacted.

b) 6, Carlton Lane 
Peter had also written to LCC Planning in respect of this proposal and included a request for clarity in terms of access arrangements from Carlton Lane in the light of the large difference in levels and the high quality hedge on the boundary of the site. The opportunity was also taken to reiterate the position in terms of trees on Conservation Area sites, even though the location of the building is unlikely to impact on the most mature trees in the vicinity. Some reply had also been received in respect of this (Post meeting note: this will be elaborated on at the next meeting)
 
c) Skelton development 
The development within the Aire Valley and its impact on Skelton Lake was again discussed. Peter indicated that the outline application was on the LCC website and urged committee members to review this in the hope that the Forum would be able to make a submission i.e. in relation to what is such a significant housing development (circa 1500 houses and a school) and recognising its proximity to sensitive environmental sites.

33.12 Any other business 
Sandra referred to the fact that the Salute had submitted an application for an extension to the patio at the front of the restaurant and that she noted the Forum had not made a response. This was accepted and this was perhaps an oversight particularly now recognizing the possible issues allied to parking. The design appeared to be as presently exists with catenary lighting.
The parking at Wood Lane was briefly discussed and Carl indicated that he had contacted the Council in respect of the matter. The danger was that the LCC intention to prohibit parking on Wood Lane would merely move the problem possibly to St Georges. The problem needed to be dealt with at source. This matter was likely to be discussed at the next meeting as Roy had also strong views in relation to this issue. He had previously been in contact with the Highways Department who had fairly much ignored some suggested solutions to the access problem allied to the A61 and Wood Lane now further exacerbated by the parking situation.
Ruth Webster mentioned the application or possible application to modify the building behind Salute (the Parish Hall) to provide more accommodation, now by introducing a second storey as opposed to a ground floor extension. This constituted another possible development in the Conservation Area.

33.13 Date and time of Next meeting 
The next meeting would be on Monday 6th June at the Haigh Road Centre at 7.00pm

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM
NOTES OF STEERING GROUP COMMITTEE MEETING NO 31
ON 29TH FEBRUARY 2016
Haigh Road Community Centre.
Present:
Anne German, Cllr David Nagle, Roy Garside, Richard Walker, Paul Reed, Colin Bell, Sandra Thompson, Angela Kellett, John McGrory, Joan McGrory, Peter Ellis
 
31.1 Welcome, Introduction and Apologies
Apologies were received from Cllr Golton, John McVeigh, Carl Gledhill and Graham Fox

31.2 Approval of the notes of the previous meeting held on the 25th January 2015
 
The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of Proceedings.

31.3 Matters Arising from the notes of the previous meeting
 
Peter opened the meeting by asking the members if there had been any thoughts about which Theme Groups they would like to be a part of. There was a discussion but there was no conclusion and Peter therefore suggested that he would like everyone think about this and let him know at the next meeting.

31.4 The Forum and its future. 
a) Gauging Interest
 
Peter mentioned that if the Forum was going to carry on into the future then there
would have to be Officers elected i.e. Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer and Committee
members and that it was important to be clear as to whether existing officers would, subject to the procedures relating to an AGM, be still interested in having their names put forward.
b) Contacting Members and letter for distribution
Peter also distributed a letter he had drafted which he hoped would be able to be sent to existing Forum members to gauge interest in being involved with the Forum and hopefully attending future meetings. It was hoped that there would be good response from members both from the perspective of being involved with theme groups and the general running and mobilisation of the Forum to achieve its stated aims.
c) AGM
This was to some extent dependent on an understanding as to the views of the present officers and their roles and of course response from the membership.
d) Bids for assistance
Peter indicated that he would try to get in touch with the person (David Gluck) who is helping Oulton and Woodlesford with their Plan or at least find out how the cost of this advice had been accommodated within the constraints of the grant allocation. It was becoming increasingly clear that calling upon someone with prior knowledge of the process allied to formulation of a plan and the relevant expertise was essential to avoid wasted effort.

31.5 Theme Groups and Organisations
The Theme Groups were agreed at the last Steering Group meeting on the 25th January they are:

     Transport      Employment
     Education     Environment/Ecology
     Heritage       Housing
     Health

It was said that the Forum has to start involving other organisations particularly in respect of the work of the Theme groups.. Anne indicated that she would contact Simon Bulmer of Rothwell History Group to see if he will attend a meeting and consider helping with the Heritage Theme Group. Anne said she had contacts within the footpath group and Leeds City Council. Peter and John McVeigh had spoken about the need to try to schedule all of the organisations in Rothwell who might be interested in the work of the Forum.

31.6 Grants
Peter stated a Forum bank account is now in being and that funds stood at £1809. Roy and he were at present the signatories.
Part of this fund, which had been obtained as a grant from Locality (administered by Groundwork) had been intended to support an ecological survey at Haighside Wood and environs. However the Forum might need to return some of the grant to the funding body as it is virtually certain an ecologist would not be able to complete an ecological survey at Haighside Wood before the end of March due to the seasons i.e. the timing of the grant and the optimum time for a survey were not compatible. Anne indicated that the ideal months for a survey is May/June/July when the vegetation has grown and the Bat’s are hunting.

31.7 Questionnaire.
a) Methods to distribute
Peter said that he hoped some of the grant could be used to help with copying of questionnaires. Approximately £700 of the grant had been identified for copying and works allied to the questionnaire and other copying works e.g. drawings. One of the members suggested maybe it could be also used to pay someone to deliver questionnaires. Nothing was decided but Peter said he will look at this idea. David Nagle asked the members if they would be willing to deliver them and Anne said she would certainly deliver some. Colin asked would it would be better to fill in the questionnaire electronically but the answer was that not everyone has a computer so to deliver by hand would be better. David also suggested that some could be left in the library. Further suggestions were Stephen Ward’s and maybe the One Stop Shop and also utilisation of notice boards. Anne suggested we also needed to get a letter together to put into the Rothwell Record.

Peter said he hoped the revised questionnaire might also be used on “Survey Monkey” and that he had registered as a user of the free service.

b)John O’Gaunts
Peter attended the J O G “Fun Day” and had set up a desk for questionnaires including a box for returns. The day had been productive and a number of returns were received. However this had been a slightly tortuous process and in most cases Peter had needed to read out the questions to respondents to achieve answers. People filling in the forms themselves expended considerable time.  It was a long process and the main thing learned, apart from the views of the respondents, was that the questionnaire needed to be simplified if a reasonable eventual ‘Rothwell response’ was going to be achieved. Peter would look at making the necessary adjustments

31.8 Technical Support Update
Peter indicated that he had met Matthew Kay from AECOM in respect to the options and appraisals technical support package. Peter had met Mr Kay in the library and discussed the sites in question. He has also taken Mr Kay to the new proposed sites as well as all of the sites within the Site Allocation Plan. Mr Kay would now prepare a report into the validity of the  key alternative sites put forward by the Forum, principally Rothwell Haigh and the Motor Auctions Sites

31.9 Footpath 54 Haighside Wood
Anne said she hadn’t met Andy Tiffany from TCV (The Conservation Volunteers) because he failed to attend the agreed meeting, so she had got in touch with him to arrange another day. A day was arranged to meet at the Wood for Friday 11th March at 10am. Andy wouldn’t be there, but it was arranged to meet two other TCV members called Dougie and Holly. This meeting was to discuss the possibility of widening the footpath and also cutting back the foliage. There was a discussion about this and a question was asked why can’t LCC do the work as they have taken ownership if the Wood. Anne explained that Bob Buckenham Manager Public Rights of Way had said that they don’t have enough manpower to do this and the footpath is unadopted anyway, so isn’t their responsibility. This was something that was treated with considerable scepticism by the meeting. There followed a lengthy discussion which Anne brought to a close by suggesting that Roy and Peter come to a meeting arranged by Karen Bruce at Haighside Wood on the 24th March at 10am to talk to Bob Buckenham about this matter. Joe Coles and Anne will be attending.

31.10 Development Plan Panel: Latest situation
Roy had received an e mail from the Secretary of Garforth Neighbourhood Planning Forum with an attached consultation document. The document is called Leeds City Region Strategic Economic Plan review and this document came from the Development Plan Panel which met on the 19th January 2016. It says in the document “there is a likelihood of a significant further number of dwellings after the present planning period”. Some of the members asked Roy if he would circulate this e mail and Roy said he would hope to do so. The underlying indication was that the LCC were trying already to plan for the period beyond 2028, with a suggestion that the Outer South HCMA might be expected to accommodate a further 6000 houses.

31.11 Web Site and Communications Considerations
 
Peter confirmed to Sandra that the notes of the last meeting can go onto the website and Sandra agreed to do this. Anne said now Spring has arrived she would like to start putting some notes on the website about Haighside Wood and what birds have arrived when the Butterflies are flying and the Bats have returned. The basic principle would be that when minutes of a meeting were agreed at the following meeting they could be included on the site. If it was felt that this would limit communication then “draft minutes” could perhaps be included, but would need to be marked “subject to approval”. This was perhaps making the process more onerous.

31.12 Planning Issues
a) Barraclough Yard
 
Peter had written to the case officer again outlining the concerns in respect of the site and the lack of information received in terms of landscaping drawings as required by the planning conditions Cllr Nagle indicated that he would chase the matter. Peter reiterated the concern that the Council had authored and had approved a management plan for the Conservation Area and yet they seemed to pay it scant regard and for example it was not something that underpinned any of the conditions relating to the planning approval documentation. He hoped Cllr Nagle would also bring this point to attention, not only in the context of Barraclough Yard, the Conservation Area as a whole and thanked him for his efforts.

Roy asked Peter if he would be able to contact Victoria Hinchcliffe Walker (Principal Planner) in respect of the lack of communication, particularly as it was she who had promoted the need for improved communication with groups like the Forum.
b) 6, Carlton Lane
No action had been taken in respect of this application
c) Skelton Lake Services
Anne said she had been to the presentation at the Oulton Institute and she was very impressed with the proposed development of the Motorway Services. She asked the member of MSA (Motorway Services Association) staff how the area would be designed so there will be minimum disturbance to the wildlife on and around the lake and the birds that breed on there. Anne was shown all of the drawings of how the footpaths cycle way and green spaces would be designed .and as far as she is concerned providing the company sticks to what they say there is no objection to the development. Swillington Ings Bird Group are also working with the company all of the way through the process.
d) Other Developments
The proposals allied to Windlesford Green were debated. Detail allied to this discussion were not fully recorded and it is asked that this be rectified under “Approval of Notes of the Previous Meeting at the next committee meeting”
31.13 Any Other Business
No items were discussed
31.14 Date and time of next meeting
The next meeting will now be held at 7.00pm on the 4th April 2016 at Haigh Road Community Centre (as previously and separately communicated)



 

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM
NOTES OF STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No 30

Held on 25th January 2016 at Haigh Road Community Centre.
Present:
Cllr. Stewart Golton,Cllr. David Nagle, Richard Walker, John McVeigh, Angela Kellett, Denise Kennaugh, Joan McGrory, John McGrory, Anne German, Colin Bell, Carl Gledhill, Peter Ellis.

30.1 Welcomes, Introductions and Apologies
Apologies were received from Roy Garside, Yvonne Bell, Cllr Karen Bruce, Sandra Thompson and Paul Reid

30.2 Approval of the notes of the previous meeting held on the 14th December 2015
The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings

30.3 Matters Arising from the Notes of the previous Meeting
The subject of the former “China Dragon” site was referred to and a discussion allied to the present situation allied to the Trustees of Dolphin Manor and the alternative private provision was debated. There was clear frustration from some attendees at the situation allied to what was considered to be the potential for a lack of local affordable care as a result of the lack of support for Dolphin Manor

A key question in terms of local housing was also whether it could be confirmed that the rooms within the new provision at Oulton would be set against the Outer South housing target. It had been suggested that this was the situation at the previous meeting and the matter requires confirmation.

30.4 The Structure of the Forum (Committee, Membership and Officers)
a.)Gauging Interest
It was clear that there needed to be an AGM , but before convening such a meeting it was only sensible to understand whether present committee members had an interest in continuing in their present rolls. John McGrory indicated that he and Joan could not really become more involved than they already were, due to commitments allied to the Rothwell Music Festival. There was little response from other members, so it was decided that more time was necessary for them to consider the matter and it was hoped that greater clarity could be gained at the February meeting. Peter indicated that we could not carry on in the same vein as at present and that Roy and he could not continue at the level of intensity that had prevailed in recent times.

b.)Contacting Members
After a detailed discussion it was agreed that there needed to be a multiple effort to contact members via email and where emails were not available by post (hand deliveries). Peter indicated that he had recently let Carl have a document listing the latest known members together with all known email addresses , telephone numbers etc. Carl agreed to look at configuring these addresses to allow information to be sent out and Peter agreed to put together a letter to be sent to the members. This letter would be by way of a fresh start. It would indicate that the Forum was now designated and had a defined Neighbourhood Area. It would stress the value of a 15 year plan, would ask whether people were able to be more closely involved and whether they could provide particular expertise. It was thought the questionnaire could also be sent out at the same time. (Ideally in electronic format)

It was also felt that there might be merit in including an article in the Rothwell Record.
 
c.)AGM
This had really been discussed under 30.4b, but it was reiterated that hopefully following contact with members on the list, that more interest in an AGM would be generated. The letter to be sent out could include an indication that there would be a forthcoming AGM, date to be agreed.

30.5 Initial Actions allied to the Neighbourhood Plan

a.)Tentative Theme Groups
Following on from the last meeting where the idea of actively configuring theme groups was discussed the meeting generally agreed that there were perhaps 7 key themes, namely:

Housing         Health

Transport       Employment

Education      Environment/Ecology

Heritage

There was little understanding as to which themes attendees felt most aligned with, though Anne was clear that she still wanted to continue involvement with the Environment/Ecology aspect of the Plan. Peter again asked that people try to decide which themes they had most interest in and he would consider introducing the concept of themes within the Members letter that he was hoping to prepare.

b.)Other Organisations
Having agreed the basic themes that were likely to structurally underpin the future Plan, it was important to start to also involve other Groups and Organisations in Rothwell and to try and affiliate them to particular Theme Groups or to procure some agreement to utilise their expertise (e.g. the Local History Group in respect of a Heritage Theme Group and Rothwell In Bloom, Rothwell Footpath Group etc. in respect of an Environment Theme Group.)

John McVeigh said he would resurrect his list of useful organisations for the next meeting. Peter indicated that he had recently also been investigating this matter.

c.)Information and Data Gathering
Peter reiterated the need to collect useful data to gain a proper understanding of the parameters that applied to Rothwell in respect of the chosen groups. Some of this information was perhaps easily accessible and it was felt that representatives of the Council would be able to assist in respect of some of the subject matter.

d.)Questionnaires, Objectives and Policies
It was again suggested that this was arguably the most challenging part of the process, because, as indicated at the December meeting, until the views of the community had been properly collated it was not possible to identify objectives as to how Rothwell needed to develop over the next 15 years and arrive at a situation where Policies could be authored.

Peter indicated that he was due to attend an event at John O’ Gaunts where he hoped that it would be possible to distribute questionnaires. Discussion followed as to how questionnaires could be distributed and the idea of key zones was explored i.e. Haighside had been progressed previously and now John O’Gaunts was being targeted. If Rothwell could be split up into some key zones e.g. Manor Estate, Oakroyd etc. this might be the way forward. If funds were indeed realised then this could hasten the process.

30.6 Grants and Technical Support
 
In terms of the Grant it was now understood that a Due Diligence Form would need completing and this included details of Bank accounts etc. Peter had arranged to meet someone from the HSBC bank to set up a “Community Account”. Some of the funds it was hoped to realise would be directed at disseminating the questionnaire in accordance with the basis of the claim. The overall grant was for £1890 subject to the Due Diligence submission.

The contact with AECOM (Technical Consultants) who were providing initial technical support (i.e. a free service separate to the grant process) allied to a site options package had not been in contact since Peter had sent them information allied to the various sites. However Peter confirmed that he had written to them to chase up the situation.

30.7 Progress Report (4/1) to Development Plan Panel

Reference was made to Roy’s email of the 14th January on this subject. From Roy’s initial assessment the main change seemed to be a marginal adjustment to phasing. However no one in attendance had yet studied the report in detail (the report is easily accessed via the Councils Public Access System: Councils Development Plan Panel - Meetings - Agenda and minutes). * Please try to do so before the next meeting

30.8 Web Site and Communications Considerations

It was agreed that the minutes of the previous last two meetings could be included on the web site and that from now on the minutes could be included as soon as they had been approved at the following meeting. Peter agreed to contact Sandra in respect of this matter.

30.9 Haighside Wood

Anne indicated that the Environmental Sub Group for Outer South would be meeting in February. The footpath to (and through) the Wood was not in a good state and this was something that Anne had made known .Bob Buckenham (Public Rights of Way Manager) had been contacted by Roy in respect of remedial works and issues allied to bank erosion etc. Anne said that Roger Brookes (Public Rights of Way Development Officer) had suggested the use of a voluntary organisation to assist in the rectification of the present problems, but that this could result in a cost in the order of £300/day.(The Conservation Volunteers (TCV) were referred to and the West Yorkshire Manager, John Preston). Anne asked if the Councillors could assist with the financial consequences of this work and Cllr Nagle thought that it might be possible to do this in the context of remaining budgets.

30.10 Planning Issues
 
a.)Barraclough Yard 
Peter highlighted the fact that a Leeds CC planning enforcement officer had visited the site in respect of the works that had started on site. This was as a result of unfulfilled planning conditions that should have been satisfied before substantive construction commenced. The Contractor had yet to provide landscaping details or boundary treatment drawings, as well as a number of other pieces of information to satisfy planning requirements associated with the planning approval. Stewart Golton was of the opinion that the Planning Department might now have received an application in respect of discharge of conditions.

Peter outlined the history of the lack of a 211 notice to comply Town and Country Planning Act and that the Planning Department had confirmed in writing some time ago that the RNF would have the opportunity to comment on the landscaping plans when they were available. The need to ensure that the quality of the Conservation Area was maintained was also discussed and then ensued a discussion allied to the fence at the rear of the site adjacent Cross St.

Denise Kennaugh indicated that she had not wanted the site to be bounded by a hedge as the result could have resulted in her having to maintain this .The fence provided was, she thought, satisfactory. The Foreman on the site had not suggested to her that the reason the workforce were leaving site was as a result of the Enforcement Officer. However correspondence received by Roy Garside alluded to this fact.

b.) 6, Carlton Lane
Another Planning Application within the Rothwell Conservation Area had been submitted and the development had already been approved, but all detail was the subject of conditions allied to the approval. Again the concern was that the status of the Conservation Area might be being ignored and it would be necessary to provide some sort of response to the discharge of conditions application (16/00034/COND on the Leeds Planning web site)

c.)Other Developments
No other developments were specifically discussed
30.11 Neighbourhood Ambassador Update
It was indicated that previous requests had been made to Peter, to put himself forward as a Neighbourhood Ambassador, but he had not done so on the basis of available time. In addition a request had very recently been received in respect of a questionnaire, to be completed by young people, allied to public transport. However there was very little time left to respond.

30.12 Carlton AGM

Peter indicated that the Carlton Forum and the Village Association would be having an AGM on the 27th January and that he had been asked to do a short presentation on Rothwell Forum activities and in particular any impacts of the recent site allocation consultation on Carlton. (David Cove from Oulton and Woodlesford had been invited to do the same thing). Ian Mackay from the Planning Dept. would be in attendance and would also be speaking.

30.13 Any other Business

It was asked what was happening in terms of HS2 and Councillors confirmed that nothing would be heard until the autumn. However the inference was that the route into Leeds was perhaps unlikely to be modified.

30.14 Date and Time of Next Meeting
The next meeting would be held at 7.00pm on the 29th February 2016 (making use of the extra day!!) at Haigh Road Community Centre


ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUMNOTES OF STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING No 29. Held on 14th December 2015 at

Haigh Road Community Centre.

Present:

Cllr. Stewart Golton

Richard Walker

Craig Townsend

Angela Kellett

John McGrory

Anne German

Colin Bell

Sandra Thompson

Carl Gledhill

Roy Garside

Peter Ellis

29.1 Welcomes, Introductions and Apologies

Apologies were received from Cllr Karen Bruce, Joan McGrory, John McVeigh and Paul Reid

29.2 Approval of the notes of the previous meeting held on the 19th October

The notes of the previous meeting were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings, though this meeting had not followed the usual format in that it was devoted to the discussion of sites included within the LCC Site Allocation Plan. It was recognised that the meeting minutes did not include a list of attendees.

29.3 Matters Arising from the Notes of the previous Meeting

Roy indicated that there were a couple of aspects that while not specifically recorded in the minutes were appropriate to discuss at this point

i) China Dragon site

This site had originally been advocated for housing use, but the LCC had ultimately approved it as a site for a 74 place private care home. As this site was a possible housing site would the number of dwellings suggested be removed from the overall Outer South housing target as it was no longer available due to a unilateral decision to use the site for other purposes Discussion with Cllr. Galton suggested that the housing target should still be reduced by 74 dwellings. The dialogue also extended to reflect the fact that the Council had put the retention of Dolphin Manor in Rothwell in doubt and the impact on Dolphin Manor Trust

ii) Barraclough Yard

Roy indicated that correspondence had been received allied to Barraclough Yard in respect to Landscaping proposals. It had been confirmed by LCC would provide us with details of the proposals before work started on site. Roy had asked that the information be available for discussion at tonight’s meeting, but this had not occurred

29.4 The Structure of the Forum (Committee, Membership and Officers)

Peter outlined the fact that the Forum needed to have an AGM, but that the possibility of doing this previously had been difficult in the light of the work to respond to the LCC consultation. Now that this exercise had, for the moment, been completed the event might be able to be arranged in the near future. However there did need to be some sort of clarity as to whether there was interest in respect of the various posts that would need to be filled from the existing committee, notwithstanding possible interest from other people who might attend the AGM. It was asked if attendees and members of the Committee would consider this matter and have some views as to their preferences for the next meeting

The need for someone to take notes at Committee and Working Group meetings was also discussed. The present arrangement which involved Chairman /Vice Chairman, taking the notes and producing and distributing the minutes was not, Peter said, a sustainable state of affairs. It was particularly difficult trying to both chair the meeting and accurately detail proceedings without impacting on the flow of the meeting. It was clear that if anyone could fulfil this role, it would represent a very valuable contribution to the smoother running of the Forum. The meeting was asked if efforts could be made to identify someone who might be willing to help us.

There was also a discussion as to how the general membership might be contacted in a more comprehensive manner and to try to register increased interest in the objectives of the Forum (as highlighted within the now approved Forum designation application).Carl agreed to progress a consolidated list of members that could be “Group emailed” if Peter provided him with the necessary information.

29.5 Action Allied to the Neighbourhood Plan

a.)Broad Road Map for the Plan

The process to be followed to produce a Neighbourhood Plan was discussed and Peter tabled a schematic he had produced which aimed to show what needed to be done to establish objectives and resulting Plan Policies. Reference was made to the various Planning Aid documents that are available (post meeting note: e.g. “How to develop a Vision and Objectives”)

b.)Groups and Themes

The aforementioned schematic also tried to illustrate the way the Forum and Theme Groups might operate. It was important to note that the themes contained within the Plan could

only be finally confirmed when the objectives had been formalised. However this would be a potentially long process and in order to negate and extremely long programme it would be necessary to instigate some parallel working and to set up Theme Groups which necessarily might entail some risk eg if questionnaire results suggested a particular theme as being unimportant.

However from work done to date it was clear that Housing, Transport, Education and Health, Environment and Heritage were very likely to be major themes of the Plan. It was important that Committee members and attendees gave some thought to which themes they were most interested in.

It was also important that once the prospective themes had been agreed, that groups/societies that already existed in Rothwell were invited to be part of the Theme Groups or to assist by providing local expertise (e.g. the Local History Group in respect of a Heritage Theme Group and Rothwell In Bloom, Rothwell Footpath Group etc. in respect of an Environment Theme Group.)

c.)Information and Data Gathering

Each Theme Group once agreed would need to start to collate data in respect of the prospective themes. The Plan itself needed to be a focused document and key to achieving this would be a detailed understanding of the available information. The final document would be underpinned not only by coherent policies based on objectives, but by an appreciation of the statistics and data available for Rothwell, allied to the themes in question. Peter referred to some Plans that had been successfully completed throughout the country (and which he had circulated prior to the meeting) and drew attendees attention to the level of detail included.

d.)Questionnaires, Objectives and Policies

Peter indicated that he felt this was arguably the most challenging part of the process, because until the views of the community had been properly collated it was not possible to identify objectives as to how Rothwell needed to develop over the next 15 years, or to establish policies for inclusion in the Plan that would identify what needed to be done to satisfy those objectives.

The dissemination of questionnaires was a key issue and while some progress had been made at Haighside there was much to do. Peter explained that he had been in discussion with John O’Gaunts Tenants Association about rolling out questionnaires in this part of Rothwell and had also met Sue Wood from the Leeds Community Support Team on a couple of occasions and agreed that this could be progressed

e.)Technical Support and Grants

Peter had been in dialogue with AECOM (Consultants appointed by the government to assist Neighbourhood Forums) in respect of the initial package of free technical support and had made information available to AECOM in respect of the SAP sites in Rothwell and other

possible alternative sites. Other applications can be made as the works allied to the Plan progress, but these need to be made on an individual basis i.e. each support package requires a separate application.

In respect of the Grant, it was indicated that part of the sum applied for had been approved (time-scales and seasons allied to ecological surveys had resulted in the need to modify and reduce the basis of the application.). In any event it is hoped sums will be available to assist in some of the administration and questionnaire production and logistics costs.

29.6 Web Site and Communications Considerations

It was highlighted how valuable the web site would be and it was important that a process was identified that resulted in Sandra not having to be concerned about what did or did not appear on the site. Sandra asked if the latest minutes should be included on the site and this would be considered and confirmed i.e. the previous meeting had been a discussion allied to ways of responding to the Site Allocation Plan consultation and had not been a normally configured meeting, though as a broad principle the intent would be to include the minutes from all Forum committee meetings. It was imperative that this issue was resolved in the interest of increasing and improving levels of communication with the community and Forum members.

29.7 Any other business

Richard Walker and others thanked Roy and Peter for the work they had done in responding to the recent LCC site allocation plan consultation, which had resulted in the production of 14 separate submissions.

Roy noted that the Development Plans Panel had again been cancelled and this meant that there had been very few Panel meetings over the last 12 months (8 meetings appeared to have been cancelled) which was extremely disappointing bearing in mind the amount of work that had been imposed on the community in respect of the housing/site allocation exercise. It was hard to understand how such an important committee could fail so comprehensively to meet and therefore not make information available to the community in respect of the decision making process allied to Leeds development.

29.8 Date and Time of Next Meeting

The next meeting would be held at 7.00pm on the 25th January 2016 at Haigh Road Community Centre

ROTHWELL NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM

NOTES OF STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING  No 25.

Monday 8 June 2015 at 7.00pm at Haigh Road Community Centre.

Residents present for First Part of Meeting.

D. Brennan; Alec. Hudson; A. Moody; P. Sebine; C. Main; I. Turpin; Paul. Aveyard;
Leah. Wright; J.Matthews; D. Richards; K.Calvert; D.Brewster; A. Bragg.; John. Hall;
Jen. Hall; C. Johnson; P.Hope; Cllr Stewart. Golton; Norma. Neville Barrett; A.Sidebottom;
J.Globe;R.Collins; G. Wilmot; J.Ferriday; A.Render; R.Render; Mr&Mrs Newton; Jon.Brooks
Hazel. Harrison; Allyson. Scurrah; Mr&Mrs Kendall; Anne.Jones ; Joe.Johnson; Sue.Fields;
Christine. Wolstenholme; Colin.Bell; Yvonne.Bell; Mary. Fleet; Rebecca Woods; Karen. Holmes; Carl Gledhill; Paul.Reed; Terry. Powell; Clare. Grey; Ian.Turpin; L.Riddel;


Members of the Steering Committee Present

John and Joan McGrory; Anne German; Sandra Thompson; Angela. Kellett; Peter. Ellis; Paul Rothwell; Richard. Walker; Graham Fox;James.O’Neil; Stuart Oldroyd; Roy.Garside.

Cllr Stewart Golton ;  Cllr  David Nagle

25.1 Welcome , Introductions and Apologies.

Roy Garside the Chairman of the Neighbourhood Forum welcomed visitors and members to the meeting and members of the Forum’s Steering Committee introduced themselves.

Roy explained that the Forum was in the course of preparing a Neighbourhood Plan and It had been agreed at the last Working Group meeting 11 May that Jim could circulate  hard copies of the questionnaire that the Forum had produced to support the plan to residents in the area surrounding St Georges. In the course of this he had also made people aware of the 8 June Steering Committee of the Forum. He had also invited them to attend the meeting if they were interested in expressing their concerns regarding the proposed residential developments to the side and rear of St Georges and the Haighsides which had been highlighted in the local councillors letters to residents 30 January.   

In view of the number of residents attending the meeting it was proposed that the issue of the proposed development adjoining St Georges be dealt with as the first item on the agenda 25.3 under Matters Arising from the Previous Meeting item 24.6 Neighbourhood Plan 1. Site 1058 Haighside

25.3  Matters Arising from the Notes of the Previous Meeting

          Item 24.6  Neighbourhood Plan.

Roy explained the background to the Interim Forum being established at the beginning of  2013 and its purpose to produce a Neighbourhood Plan . The Forum Area had been designated in January 2015 and the Forum had been finally approved by the Council in April 2015.

The Forum had submitted a response to the Council’s Consultation document on the proposed Site Allocation Plan in July 2013. The Site Allocation Plan set out the Councils proposed land developments for the period upto 2028.

This response prioritised the Forum’s view of the suitability all the proposed developments within the Forum Area using a wide range of criteria, which concluded that site 1058 was not suitable for residential development and 1049 scoring only slightly better due to the availability for direct access to the local road system.

The Council has considered these comments and produced a revised the Site Allocation Plan
which was released for public information in February of this year. The Plan will be formally consulted upon in the Autumn of this year. The Plan continued to show that sites 1058 and 1049 were still considered suitable by the council for residential development. 


Site 1058  Haighside.

The local councillors had circulated letters at the end of January 2015 to residents in the locality of St Georges bringing to their attention the Councils Core Strategy and the consultation later in 2015 on the proposed Site Allocation Plan which continued to include these two sites. This being in spite of the Forums objection at the time of the consultation and the Local Councillors formal objections during the subsequent internal review of the objections by the council officers.

In the Councils review of the site it had been indicated in the conclusion of the 1058 pro forma that there was a ‘ local preference ‘  for the development of this site. This has been contested and presently accepted as an error. For this and other reasons the Chair of the City Plan Development Panel had agreed for a review of the designation of this site at the beginning of 2015

Cllr Nagle advised that unfortunately there had been a change of Chair of the Panel and the case would have to be made again. In response to questions of why the developments were necessary Cllr Nagle explained that the Neighbourhood Plan needed to accommodate the number of houses identified in the councils Core Strategy so that the Plan could be accepted by the Council. If the plan was accepted by the council then this would protect the area against further intrusive proposals by developers. If the local plan was approved it would have legal standing.

Cllr Golton explained that the Council had produced a Core Strategy for the planning period and this had been consulted upon and reviewed  and agreed by a Government Planning Inspector.  This plan had been adopted by the Council in November 2014.  The Core Strategy was based upon the need to build 70,000 houses over the planning period to meet the projected requirements of population growth and economic development.

There were other informed views about the required scale of housing development which were much lower,  between 53,000 to 60,000

The figure of 70,000 had recently been reviewed by the Council in the light of the figures published by the Office of National Statistics based upon the 2012 census information but they had concluded that the figure was still appropriate . This information is covered at item 25.6 of the meeting Agenda. Housing Targets.

Questions regarding how the sites were chosen were raised and it was explained that some time ago there was a public invitation by the Council for sites to be offered for future development. These proposed sites were reviewed by a range of technical  officers and public service providers, for their suitability and a final list was produced.

Cllr Nagle explained that these sites were necessary for the future development of the City. 
Their distribution across the city is however quite variable and Leeds Outer South which includes Rothwell has a large component of green belt and therefore has  one of the lowest percentages of new houses at 4% to reflect this .  The largest proportions being East Leeds with 17% , Outer South West 11%  and City Centre 15.5%.

Concern was expressed by residents regarding the use of agricultural greenbelt for development when the first priority should be brownfield sites. Clearly there was little brownfield land in the Rothwell Area but Roy indicated that the Forum was looking at area which could be considered as brownfield and would be preferable to the use of agricultural greenbelt. Areas being considered by the Working Group included portions of the Pelican Site , the Girlingstones site currently being used as car storage and the 4x4 site on the Leeds Road adjacent Pennington Lane. Clearly there were issues with each of these sites but they needed to be considered to protect the Greenbelt Land.

There was no definite number of new houses specifically identified for Rothwell but Cllr Golton indicated that there is approx. 2,500 allocated for the Outer South Area..  Roy stated that from the numbers of houses identified in the various sites within  the Rothwell Forum Area , the number of houses for Rothwell was in the order of 1,000 depending on the housing densities used.

Concern was expressed that there was inadequate education facilities and infrastructure to support this level of development. There was likely to be in excess of 1,000 new houses  including the recently completed St Georges development in the locality of Low Shops with no adequate primary schools. Roy indicated that the issue of primary school places had been taken up with Education Leeds and a representative had attended a recent Forum meeting. Their view was that there were sufficient places or there would be when needed. Further discussions were to be held with education and also with Highways.

The Council had recently released papers on their website relating to the proposed Housing Numbers and also on the Phasing of the release of sites over the planning period . There were a number of criteria for the release of sites but one of the issues in this process was the availability of infrastructure to support the additional houses. This paper was covered later in the agenda but could be circulated later to those interested.

Jim O’Neil said that greenspace should not be built on. During the run up to the May elections all the canvassers had indicated that they supported this situation but how many would actually maintain this position in the future. Dennis Brewster asked how the plan would eventually be approved and it was indicated that officers would eventually make a recommendation to the Development Plans Panel and then the Cabinet. Finally the full Council would vote on accepting the Plan. In the end it was up to each individual councillor to decide on whether to accept the plan or not.

The timescale for the remainder of the process had still not been clearly set but the formal consultation on the proposed plan was likely to be in the Autumn with a two month period for comments.  These comments would be considered by officers who would make recommendations and the plan modified if necessary and then put forward for the approval of the council  This would likely to be in spring 2016 and after this the plan would need to be considered by a Government Planning Inspector as was the Core Strategy. Following any recommendations by the Inspector the plan would then be put forward to the Full Council for Approval which would likely to be towards the end of 2016.

As far as the community is concerned however it is likely that their last opportunity to formally comment will be at the Autumn 2015 Consultation other than to make representation to the Inspector during his Inquiry.

There was concern by the majority of the residents that they were not aware of the situation despite there being a considerable amount of information available and Paul Reid said that things would be much clearer for people if communication of the situation was made available .  Peter accepted that the Forum’s main problem was the limitations that they had with communications including not having a website.

Julie Globe advised that St Georges had a Forum based on social media and this could be extended if she was provided with the relevant information. Julie was already a member of the Forum and it was agreed that her suggestions regarding communications be pursued as soon as possible.


The first section of the meeting covering Matters Arising closed at 8.00pm. and residents were invited to stay for the remainder of the meeting if the wished. 


25.4  Forum Issues.

a.  Formal Establishment.

A paper had been circulated at the previous Steering Committee meeting  [ 23 April ] which had set out some of the issues which required to be dealt with in formally setting up the Forum.

Some of these items related to the Steering Committee and its establishment as set out in the Draft Constitution which was also provided at the previous meeting.  At the meeting it had been agreed  that prior to the setting up of the first Annual General Meeting it would be necessary to have in place a suitable minutes secretary and a prospective Forum Secretary.

b. Interim Arrangements

Due to the likely delay in setting up of an AGM and the Formal appointment of officers , Roy had produced a paper proposing that the existing Steering Committee members should be confirmed as interim officers in the their present posts until that time.

This was unanimously agreed

With regard to the post of Chairman the paper requested that the Committee and other members of the Forum present at the meeting confirm the position of the present post holder until the Forum is formally constituted or if they wish appoint an alternative member of the Steering Committee to the post of Chairman on an interim basis.

Cllr Nagle proposed that the present post holder continued and this was unanimously agreed.


c. Questionnaire

Jim and Stuart had produced hard copies of the agreed questionnaire produced by Peter and had circulated them manually to a considerable number of houses in the vicinity of St Georges and Haighside. Many of the residents attending the meeting had brought completed copies of the questionnaire to the meeting.

Peter was still experiencing problems in setting up the electronic system but agreed to look at how the returned hardcopy questionnaires could be best recorded and evaluated. It had been agreed at the previous meeting that the outcome from the Carlton and O&W questionnaires be obtained for comparison and Peter and Jmcv agreed to follow this up


d. Links to other Local Organisation

Cllr Golton clarified that the initiative referred to at the previous meeting regarding John’OGaunts was regarding the production of an estate plan which would eventually feed into the local plan produced by the Forum.

There was no other information available at the present time.

25.5  Neighbourhood Plan.

      Notes of Working Group No 5 held 11 May.

a. Sites 1058 and 1049.

As indicated in the earlier part of the meeting the Chair of the Development Plans Panel had changed and the new chair replacing Cllr Walshaw who had attended a meeting earlier in the year to discuss sites 1058 and 1049 was Cllr Mckenna. 

b. Bell Hill and Site 1335.

A meeting with Highways was still to arrange.

c. Other possible Sites.

Support for the development of the Girlingstones site for residential development was to some extent based upon the fact that in the Site Allocation Plan the site No 2201750 had been classed as  ‘ not considered suitable for allocations for employment ‘  Dennis who worked at the car auctions was not aware of this position and Roy agreed to pursue the matter further.

25.6  Neighbourhood  Plan -  Task Schedule.

The Draft Task Schedule which was issued at the previous Meeting was reviewed against progress made since the meeting.

1. Questionnaire - as stated in item 25.4.c above.

2. Objectives – to be finalised when results of Questionnaire available.

3. Housing Target-  The Councils review was now complete item, item25.8  below and the paper  sets out the basis of the conclusion which was that the target of 70,000 homes would remain. It was however agreed that it would still be helpful for Graham to follow up alternative options.

4. Greenspace -  Anne had been in contact with the Council regarding the Greenspace at the end of Low Shops and the disused railway tracks . In order for clarity it was agreed in future that the name of the wood at the end of Low Shops would be called Haighside Wood.

5. Natural Habitat.- Anne had also been in contact with the the council officer responsible for this and had asked if a survey could be carried out.

6. Environment -  John McVieigh agreed to contact the Environment Agency regarding water courses in the area and possible constraints.

7. Highways and Transportation – John Hall had given Roy a contact name in Highways to arrange a discussion similar to the one on Education.

8. Education – Paul had received a response from Education Leeds following the meeting with Mr Crawley who had advised that they considered that the Haigh Road and Victoria schools could accommodate the additional places generated by the developments proposed in the Site Allocation Plan along Wood Lane.

They did not consider that the proposed school associated with site no 3081 A adjoining Sharp Lane was necessary.

After discussion it was agreed that Paul would write back to Mr Crawley to seek details of how it was envisaged that the schools in question could be extended within their limited areas.

25.7.    Community Assets.

Roy had circulated copies of a document ‘Understanding Community Assets ‘ and Jim had made further inquiries to Wimpey regarding the present state of ownership of the triangular piece of land  adjacent to Low Shops and was presently awaiting a reply. It was agreed that this and the other sections of land referred to should be submitted for inclusion as Community Assets.

25. 8   Site Allocation Plan – Core Strategy -  Housing Targets  -  Phasing

These documents which had recently been approved by the Councils Development Plan Panel  [ 19 May ]  had been circulated to the committee for information. The Housing Targets document set out the rationale for maintaining the 70, 000 target for new homes.

The Phasing document included the rationale for the managed release of sites included in the Site Allocation Plan over the planning period taking into account the size of sites their accessibility  to public transport , least impact on Green Belt objectives and  greenspace  corridors.


25.9  Developments and Planning Applications.


1. Royds Lane Traffic Restrictions.

A letter had been received from Highways regarding the Forums proposals for Traffic Restrictions on Royds Lane. Whilst the letter provided a clearer view of the possible works that could be carried out using the Section 106 monies from  the residential development it was not clear to what extent the work outlined could actually be funded.

It was agreed to write back seeking clarification as to the possible extent of the works and why earlier proposals by the Forum had not been included.

2. Aldi Supermarket.

The planning application for the new store by Aldi on the Ashleigh Signs site had eventually been approved at the Plans Panel Meeting 4 June. The outcome had been a compromise  on the main issue of opening and delivery times with the final times for closing on normal days being 9.00pm.

25.8  Any Other Business.

     Barraclough Yard.

A letter had been received by Graham regarding the outstanding issues relating to this application which had been approved some time ago. Both Graham and Peter had continued objecting to certain aspects of the proposal without receiving responses.

The letter outlined the present situation with regard to the trees and landscaping but also made comment on how planning applications had been managed by the Council and advised that they recognised that there could be improvement made in communications, particularly with Neighbourhood Forums and that officers are now asked to take a more proactive approach in engaging with community representatives.

It was agreed that this was a very encouraging move by the council and that Roy should respond both to this and also the remaining issues with the landscaping.


25.9  Date and Time of Next Meeting.

It was agreed that the next meeting of the Steering Committee would be held

6 July at the Haigh Road Community Centre      

                                                                                                                       RyG  16.06.15