You are on page 1of 22


String o' Beads Forest Garden Chain

A potential feature within
Tom Bliss (TB) - - 20 06 14
with thanks to Dr Andy Millard for comments and additions.
Version 2 including feedback incl Parks & Countryside.

(Woodhouse Moor only)

String o' Beads (SoB) is rhyming slang for Leeds (working title only) and a concept for a chain of 'pocket'
forest gardens and orchards, with interspersed wild flower / pollinator and food planting, across the Leeds
Edible Campus site, linking the community permaculture garden at Bedford Fields in the north with the
University of Leeds Sustainable Garden in the south, to provide a foraging route deep into the city.

For origin, rationale and list of partners see

This is primarily an academic project for Leeds Met students, but it does have potential for live implementation. This will
only be considered if all stakeholder parties are content and funding secured. Detailed survey, engagement and design
work by Leeds Met, Parks and Permaculture UK/Edible Cities would then ensure that any planting was appropriate,
attractive and ecologically sound, with long-term maintenance and support systems in place. It is not intended
substantially to alter the character, aesthetic or functions of the Moor. Initially, intervention would be minimal - usually in
unused corners - with additions phased in, as and when agreed, over a period of years.

This document quotes work by the following students. Some duplication is included for interest
(There may be minor errors here and there)
Lee Greenwood, Nicholas Hirst, Alicia Hunston (Planning MA 2013): LEC Project (Tutor: Dr Lindsay Smales)
Charlotte Dean (Landscape MA 2013): Ornamental Edible Public Planting (Tutor: TB)
Jill Broekel (Landscape MA 2013): Edible Strategems (Tutor: TB)
Jullyana De Melo Menezes, Gabriela Otremba (Supervisor: Tom TB)
Science Without Borders Internship 2014

Left: For illustration only. Final locations of 'beads' would be decided by analytical process - see website for progress
Right: Allotments covered most of Woodhouse Moor during in WWII (Aerofilms - early 1950s, via John Preston)

Charlotte Dean

References to follow

BugLife B-Line Project

From 'Making a B-Line through Leeds' (Leanna Dixon, BugLife)


B-Line Leeds Site 10: Woodhouse Moor

Site description:

This site is located within a formal park setting. The 2 outlined sites have previously been managed as
wildflower meadows but in recent years have been dominated by grass species. [This is not the case in the
eastern area - see below]

Grid reference: SE289350 Size: 0.9ha.

Proposed management:

Scarify the sites with spring tine harrow (or similar) to make bare ground and sow appropriate
wildflower mix in autumn (to include yellow rattle as core component). Roll after seeding.
Cut and remove grass in first year when sward reaches c. 10 cm in height, then leave to develop
into meadow for the remainder of the year Cut and remove vegetation in early August once yellow
rattle has seeded. [This advice is questioned below]

Public engagement:

Woodhouse Moor is very close to Leeds University therefore it could be used for educational purposes
(habitat management and identification modules as well as volunteer societies). The park is also a main
commuter route for university staff and students so the meadows will be highly visible and have the
potential to be high profile.

Leeds B-Lines Project Site Monitoring:
The flora and pollinator species will be assessed before and after improvement works using standardised
transects and quadrats. This will allow the success of the project to be assessed by analysing how species
diversity, richness and abundance have changed. Fixed point photographs will also be taken to allow for
future monitoring of larger-scale changes. Protocols from the Bumblebee Conservation Trusts BeeWalk
and the UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme will be used to survey bumblebees and butterflies to allow for
easy replication by volunteers in the future.


Lee Greenwood, Nicholas Hirst, Alicia Hunston (Planning MA 2013): LEC Project (Tutor: Dr Lindsay Smales)

Charlotte Dean (Landscape MA 2013): Ornamental Edible Public Planting (Tutor: TB)

Charlotte Dean

Charlotte Dean
Charlotte Dean

Lee Greenwood, Nicholas Hirst, Alicia Hunston (Planning MA 2013): LEC Project (Tutor: Dr Lindsay Smales)

Jill Broekel (Landscape MA 2013): Edible Strategems (Tutor: TB)
New Generation Transport Scheme

A level of uncertainty exists re the future of the Moor due to current plans for the installation of a trolleybus scheme, called New
Generation Transport (NGT), through the site. The proposal is currently at the public inquiry stage. If it goes ahead, there will be
significant changes to Woodhouse Lane and other roads, with some loss of green space and trees. One a more positive note, the
scheme could present opportunities for off-set mitigation investment, from which the LEC could benefit if a suitable case can be made.

The Library Pub
The Bird Cage
Cinder Moor
Monument Moor
Monument Moor

Scoping Meeting (11 06 14)

This took the form of an exploratory walk, followed by a round table meeting with interested parties.
Organisations represented included Grow Wild / Kew gardens, BugLife, Hyde Park Source, Feed Leeds,
Edible Cities, Leeds Met Landscape Department, University of Leeds Sustainability Team and
Researchers, Little Woodhouse Community Assn, Friends of Woodhouse Moor / South Headlingley
Community Assn, Bedford Fields Community Forest Garden, and the artist Benedict Phillips. (Another
dozen or more similar organisations sent apologies).

18 sites were identified as targets worthy of further exploration (excluding the UoL campus, which is being
developed separately in association with the UoL Sustainability Team and Bardon Grange).

Target Site Survey (16 06 14)

The survey was conducted by Leeds Met ecologist Dr Andy Millard, UoL Professor of Agroecology Leslie
Firbank, UoL Biodiversity MA student Ben Lawson (a permaculture and foraging specialist), one local
expert from The Friends of Woodhouse Moor, two Landscape Architecture interns and the author.

NB. Since the release of version one of this document, the Friends of Woodhouse Moor aka The South
Headingley Community Association have expressed strong opposition to any pollinator or edible planting
on the Moor, on the grounds that this could compromise any future 'Heritage Status' application. We are
awaiting advice from English Heritage on the validity of this concern, but currently our understanding is
that none of the below would compromise potential inclusion in the 'Register of Historic Parks and
Gardens of special historic interest in England' - though existing features of the park may do so.

Conservation Status

Woodhouse Moor lies inside the Headingley Hill Conservation Area - detailed in the Leeds City Council
Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan, which also includes much useful and relevant


Woodhouse Moor sits at the top of a hill, which falls away to the north east and south west, slopes down
to the city through the Leeds University Campus to the south east, and dips slightly to the north before
joining the Headingley ridge. Prevailing wind is from the south west, but the park is well sheltered by trees.

(image from Headingley Hill Appraisal and Management Plan)

Geology and soil

(image from Headingley Hill Appraisal and Management Plan)

The geology of the Moor (centre of map above) is sandstone (yellow) and millstone grit (green), underlain
predominantly by Lower Coal Measure shales, with a coal seam (Better Bed Coal) running along Hyde
Park Road to Hyde Park Corner. The soil is the typical Leeds heavy clay. No samples were tested, but
the park's use as allotments during WWII suggests reasonable soil health. Samples should be tested for
acidity, nutrient levels, soil food web health and, ideally, contamination before final designs are produced.

Ecological Typology

There is no specific ecological typology for urban parks. Woodhouse Moor, being largely mown grass and
mature trees with no understory, is an area of relatively low biodiversity. Although an entomological survey
has not been undertaken, the park is assumed to support the typical community of common insects for
this habitat type. Species identified during the survey are noted under the relevant target area sections.

The grass areas support a typical population (restricted by regular mowing) of common insects, and the
trees (which are mainly typical species such as ash, sycamore, oak etc.) host the usual common insects
and birds such as Blue Tit, Treecreeper, Blackcap, Blackbird, Robin, Carrion Crow & Dunnock. Winter
visitors like Redwings and Waxwings can be seen on the Moor. There are small pockets of shrub planting
which will provide some nesting habitat, which routine trimming and other maintenance is likely to affect
adversely. The only areas of relatively high biodiversity are the two allotment plots (which, being a
combination of cultivated and 'derelict' land, with multiple layers of wild, edible and ornamental planting
might be called de facto forest gardens), and the sown wildflower meadow surveyed below.

String o' Beads Target Sites

For an interactive and regularly updated version of this map, visit the Map page at

NB: Only targets within the Moor (3 - 15) were surveyed. 'Satellite' sites are being developed separately.

Skate Park
- key pedestrian routes --
---------- LEC phase one
Route of NGT -------
3 Derelict Playground (Between Woodhouse Cliff and Woodhouse Street). Map ID 6726

This has been closed since about 2006/7. Good cover of typical colonising plants, including tree
seedlings. Suspected partial coverage of 'Playtop'-style impact-absorbing playground safety surfacing
beneath a good leaf litter build up - creating about 1 inch of protosoil. The area is very shaded.

NB: A new road as part of the NGT alterations (see above) may obliterate this site. According to the plans,
this road runs south from Woodhouse Cliff, with a traffic island creating a one-way system. The note
'Playground to be relocated' appears on the plan.

If NGT does not proceed, need to ascertain what plans Parks have for this. Being fenced it might make an
interesting combined play / and food / sensory / pollinator patch.

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Suggestion Prioity
Fenced area
Some regeneration
Close to housing
Close to Bedford
(Could be managed

Limited soil depth
Uncertain future

Radical concept
of 'edible

Possible demolition
due to NGT and/or
Parks plans



4 'The Bird Cage' Map ID 6727

Grass and trees surrounded by low fence (largely shaded, but with two large sunny patches), plus sunny
area outside the fencing to the north, between the buildings, Cliff Rd and Woodhouse Street. Land
reputedly owned by Post Office (tbc).

This area gets good passing footfall, and should not be greatly affected if NGT goes ahead. However the
southern end of Cliff Road may acquire more traffic under the re-routing arrangements, so it could
become more of a traffic island.

Two desire lines from the gap in the fence by the bus stop to gaps in the fence to east and north. Friends
of Woodhouse Moor have suggested closing two of these to prevent through traffic.

A good daffodil display is reported, and may need to be protected.

Could some allotment style beds be introduced, perhaps adopted by local shops and cafs?

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Suggestion Prioity

Semi fenced area
High visibility for
scrumping access
Close to services
Risk of vandalism
Resistance from
conservation lobby
More then 50%

Small pocket FGs

Small 'Allotments'
for local shops and

Lack of



5 Edible Bus Stop Map ID 6728

Originally the NGT plan was for a stop where the buses currently stop, with buses instead pulling into new
stops to the west (right of picture), creating a larger hard surfaced 'bus station' area. Latest plan (see
above) suggests this stop has been moved north to beyond traffic lights, but an opportunity may still exist.

If so, and NGT goes ahead, can a case for mitigation off-set be made?

Not so much potential for a forest garden, but could become an 'edible bus stop' (proposed some time ago
by LMU students). with container-based growing. Would local cafes, shops and restaurants maintain and
harvest? Ref:

Submissions for any proposals here would need to be made soon (Public Inquiry now not expected to
finish before October). Potential for big PR wins for NGT, LCC etc.

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Suggestion Prioity

Very high visibility
Very good access
High risk of
Very high
from NGT
High impact, topical
PR wins

Lack of permission

Approach NGT
and/or First


6 Cinder Moor Bank Map ID 6735

Cinder Moor is mostly open, hard surfaced and unused (by humans, though open ground is attractive for
ground-feeding birds) - except for short spells when a circus or funfair, or overflow car parking, is installed.
(Would NGT reduce the need for this?)

What appears to be an informal green-waste tip (by Parks?) is already composting to soil. This could be
converted into a forest garden in situ with relative ease. Partial shade, bank faces north-east, but should
get sun.

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Suggestion Prioity


Vandalism risk
Distance from
(low level traffic

Medium FG in
area not much

Construction phase
of NGT?

Guerilla project
(with Parks


7 Contamination Research Area Map ID 6736

Feeds Leeds, in association with academics at UoL and LMU, have proposed a contamination research
project based in the grass strip between Woodhouse Lane and the footpath on Monument Moor, to the
north east.

After base line tests for existing soil and air pollution (there is an existing monitoring station opposite The
Library pub) a range of woody, herbaceous and root edible crops would be grown in the grass strip
between Woodhouse Lane and the footpath along Monument Moor, for as long a period as possible
before NGT construction begins. The produce would be harvested and tested for traffic-based
contamination. These tests would then be repeated after the installation of NGT, and questions asked,
such as; 'would there be any reduction in contamination because traffic had transferred to NGT', or 'would
there be no reduction because the removal of congestion had encouraged additional car journeys', or
'would traffic queuing (while the trolleybus had priority passage) actually cause an increase in
contamination'? Other related traffic research might also be possible. (This project is mentioned in LMU student
Rachel Forbes Temporary Farm proposal for the Monument Moor - see LEC Ideas page or

If NGT does not go ahead, such research would still deliver valuable data.

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Suggestion Prioity

Different criteria to
rest of project.
Research wins,
funding wins
PR wins

Requires research
project set-up

Risk of Vandalism

Innovative research
project with good
PR and educational


Pursue with Parks
and Universities


8 Shrubbery Garden Map ID: 6738

Parks planted currents and gooseberries in this raised bed as part of LEC installation (they also planted
new fruit trees near the tennis court, and - in 2013 - edible plants in the raised beds opposite the Library

Conventional forest garden technique is to begin with clean bare earth, but this area is suitable for forest
garden-style retrofit using inter-planting, which would deliver no major change to aesthetic or functionality
once established.

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Suggestion Prioity

Existing project
easier to enhance

Limited space
unless existing non-
edibles removed

Parks could
enhance using own


Suggest Parks


9 Library Bed and Bus Stop Map ID: 6782

The bed nearest to The Library pub has recently been thinned, and, like site 8, is suitable for forest garden
retrofit with no major change to aesthetic or functionality once established.

This could deliver high visibility fruit and herbs for passing students.

There is also scope an edible bus stop, like site 5, here. Ref:

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Suggestion Prioity

Bus stop as 5

Bed as 8

Bus stop as 5

Bed as 8

Bus stop as 5

Bed as 8

Bus stop as 5

Bed as 8

Bus stop as 5

Bed as 8


10 Central Hub Map ID: 6739

Originally the site of a drinking fountain, this is a shaded area with a very high footfall but limited appeal do
to unimaginative planting. The black-painted log retaining walls and seating have seen better days.

Most of the circle beds are planted with conventional (and clipped) shrubs, but one segment, to the north,
is down to grass. This has the most sun and could be planted as a site-limited wildlife meadow or, better,
a showcase forest garden, with some additional inter-planting among the existing shrubs to add value.

Strenths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Suggestion Prioity

Good visibility and
Existing planting to

Risk of Vandalism


Showcase retrofit
Forest Garden
and / or meadow

Lack of permissions

Produce sketch
designs and pursue


11 Buffer Strip Map ID: 6742

This area, planted with cotoneaster etc and apple trees, and backed by a line of mature cherries, is one of
two zones outlined as potential B-Line plots (see above).

The BugLife proposals are very compatible with forest gardens design, but any planting here would need
not to encroach on the flat area to the north used as a football pitch.

The strip was originally planted to protect the allotments from footballs (the cherry trees were used as goal
posts and balls often went over the hedge). It was the site of previous wildflower planting (involving by not
by Urban Pollinators) which has not survived, and Parks are currently strimming between the woody
plants, causing bark damage.

A comprehensive orchard / FG / meadow design could remove the need for strimming and improve both
biodiversity and foraging yields.

Strenths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Suggestion Prioity
Past use and
Proximity to
Existing fruit trees


Proximity to football

Can resolve
problems with linear
FG / orchard /

Resistance from

Produce sketch
designs and pursue


12 Leeds Met (and other) Allotment/s Map ID: 6743

There are two large allotment sites on the Moor, both surrounded by high Privet hedges, which create
sheltered semi-secure areas within. The Leeds Met Student Union 'Lets Grow' projects has recently
acquired a plot in the northern area which is already being developed as a forest garden (allotments are
anyway de facto forest gardens by default), as are other plots in the enclosure, some of which are
managed by members of the Leeds Permaculture Network.

The LEC/SoB team have identified a need for tool and materials (mainly wood chip) storage in a
reasonably central location on the Moor, and this is the most convenient fenced area. One suggestion is
to use the Lets Grow allotment shed (LMU are making a separate bid for Green Exchange funding), or to
upgrade to a shipping container (Parks report that shipping containers are usually permitted on
allotments). Tools would thus be protected by both allotment gates and padlocked doors, but this would
require that workers carried two keys.

Access here would be less suitable for wood-chip collection, however. It might be possible to use another
plot near the western gate, but the padlock there would be a problem for tree surgeons making drop-offs.
(Could another site could be made available on the Moor - e.g. near Gardeners Cottage or within the
bowling green enclosure).

Strenths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Suggestion Prioity

Existing team
Separate funding

Limited access

Home for project

Loss of funding and
/ or team

Maintain progress


13 Bowling Greens Map ID: 6744

The existing Crown greens slope slightly down to the sides of 35m squares of close-cropped grass.
Intense maintenance means that only short lawn species survive.

Two greens are being decommissioned, and Parks are open to suggestions for what to do with them, with
a stipulation that any designs should retain the quiet contemplative feel of the existing enclosure.

Two designs by LMU MA student JIll Broeckel for Healing and Productive gardens (rather than Forest
Gardens) on the bowling greens can be found on the LEC Ideas page.

"Converting bowling green lawns into edible gardens will require some adjustment to the soil and structure of bowling
green lawns. As afore mentioned, bowling greens are treated with chemical fertilizers. To ensure that edible plants
grown on these sites do not contain harmful residual chemicals, the existing soil ought to be either removed and
replaced with soil appropriate for vegetable growing or remediated by growing cover crops - such as peas - which
can soak up harmful chemicals and trace metals. The former may be more expensive, whereas the latter may take
more time. Other alternative solutions might be proposed, but regardless of which action taken, before an edible
garden can be grown the site soils must be tested and prepared for growing vegetables and fruit.

Soil depth is another factor which must be addressed in altering bowling green sites to be suitable for growing edible
plants. Bowling green thatch (organic matter just below turf surface) is kept at a depth of only about 25-50 mm. In
order for vegetables to have healthy or effective root depth, the thatch depth would need to be increased.
According to author Cathel Hutchinson (n.d.), who writes an article on the effective root depth of vegetables."

When vegetable plants are seeded into the ground, they develop roots. Roots act not only to anchor a vegetable
plant to the earth, but also take up water and nutrients from the soil, which are essential to the vegetable plants
growth. The roots of different vegetable plants penetrate to different depths, and it is important to know the effective
root depth when planting your crop.

Hutchinson specifies that there are general categories of rooting depths that edible plants can be grouped in:

1. Shallow rooting = 45 - 91 cm (18 - 36 in). Examples are broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, corn, garlic, leeks,
lettuce, onions, potatoes, radishes and spinach.
2. Medium rooting = 91 - 122 cm (36-48 in) Examples are beans, beets, carrots, cucumbers, peas, squash and
3. Deep rooting = > 122 cm (> 48in) Examples are artichokes, asparagus, parsnips, pumpkins, winter squash,
sweet potatoes and tomatoes."

Jill Broekel (Landscape MA 2013): Edible Strategems (Tutor: TB)

The fact that this area is open but surrounded by, effectively, a 'wall' of mature trees and shrubs, means
that there is a lot of scope for creating the equivalent of a woodland edge ecotone (the environment that
forest gardens seek to mimic). The more naturalistic appearance of this might not be appropriate for the
whole perimeter but would help enhance biodiversity e.g. of pollinators.

The scale of this space allows scope for a number of 'show gardens' of different sizes, nested as
appropriate, with different areas featuring different design philosophies. One area might be showcase
optimum productivity, another might explore the aesthetic compromises required to deliver both 'wild' and
'formal' planting in the same scheme, a third could explore the physic, spiritual or wellbeing aspects of
productive cultivation. There is also room for more conventional orchard or wildflower areas.

There is a shipping container by the lower greens, currently being used to store Unity Day equipment,
which belongs to SHCA, and thus probably not available to this project. Could access be made in the
south-east corner (where a tarmac spur heads up from the road) for a wood-chip drop-off?

Strenths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Suggestion Prioity

Semi protected area

Large blank

Too large for current

Showcase forest
gardens with
themes - productive,
healing, spiritual etc

Other plans?

Produce sketch
designs and pursue


14 Dew Pond Map ID: 6745

This is a small area prone to flooding (reportedly due to damage to drains from lorries access the moor
with fuel for the November 5th bonfire). There may be some water-loving plants among the sward, but this
could not be confirmed. The pond dries out in fine weather, but becomes extensive in wet.

Could this be turned to advantage somehow? (LMU student Phil Mason has produced some interesting work on
Edible Wetlands to be found on LEC Ideas page or

Strenths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Suggestion Prioity

High visibility /
High risk of
Dries out - would
need to be
deepened and/or
have water supply

Low key

Resolution of
drainage problem



15 Wildflower Meadow Map ID 6746

This is a discrete raised area, with a shallow central valley (not seen from outside), surrounded by trees,
including a few apple and cherry to the north east. Identified by Parks as a potential target site for SoB,
and listed in the B-Line proposals above, this is a large area already well-populated with wild-flowers,
including vetches of various kinds such as e.g. Bush Vetch and Meadow Vetchling, Clover, Cowslips, Hay
rattle / Yellow Rattle, Common Knapweed (Centauria), Meadowsweet, various Thistles, Oxeye Daisy,
Spanish Bluebell (non-native intruder), Hymalayan Balsam (non-native intruder), Red Campion, Salad
Burnet, Creeping Cinquefoil and Eyebright. (Fauna recorded on the day were Bombus hypnorum, Bombus
lucorum, Bombus hortorum, Bombus pascuorum, Long Tailed Tit, Robin, and Gold Finch - and a foxes
earth is reported within the reservoir enclosure to the south).

Judging by the presence of species which are very unlikely to have arrived here naturally, we assume that
this area was seeded and/or planted as a wildflower meadow some time after the reservoir, which
originally occupied this site, was replaced with the covered structure to the south, reputedly in the early
90s. Further information is required from Parks, for example what seed mix was used if so, and whether it
conformed to any particular National Vegetation Classification community.

The B-line proposals are to "Scarify with spring tine harrow (or similar) to make bare ground and sow
appropriate wildflower mix in autumn (to include Yellow Rattle as core component)." However, given than
Yellow Rattle is already present, and that this treatment may impact negatively on the other existing
species this proposal should be questioned. The growth of grasses seems quite vigorous but without
knowing how it has changed over the past few years it's difficult to say whether the Rattle is keeping the
grass in check or whether, if left as it is now, the grass might eventually crowd out a lot of the forbs.

Some tree planting has already taken place within the meadow. Some species, especially the oaks, will
eventually shade out and diminish the wild flowers, so may need to be reconsidered.

There is a case for saying that the separate, almost secret, character of this area should be maintained,
and there is a strong case for maintaining the existing species mix.

Any edible planting here would probably need to be minimal, though there may be scope for orchard
species, and it has been suggested that this could be to the east where the existing trees (mainly ash) are
thin. However, as these are self-seeded on the top of the Victorian retaining wall and bund, this may not
prove to be wise due to the risk of further root damage.

Strenths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Suggestion Prioity

Earmarked area

Threats to existing

Resistance from
conservation lobby

enhancement of


broadleaves with
fruit trees where
viable. ?Pocket FGs
in corners



The next step will be to continue engagement with key stakeholders, to obtain opinions on the
suggestions and priorities above. Once a consensus and any necessary permissions are reached,
sketch designs will be produced and costed, so that funding bids can be made and developmental plans
put into place.

REFERENCES For references relating to student work please see full documents on the links below.

Broekel, B (Landscape MA 2013): Edible Strategems (Tutor: TB)

Dean, C (Landscape MA 2013): Ornamental Edible Public Planting (Tutor: TB)

De Melo Menezes J, Otremba G Science Without Borders Internship 2014 (Supervisor: Tom TB), unpublished.

Dixon, L 'Making a B-Line through Leeds' (BugLife) accessed 07 07 14

Greenwood L, Hirst N, Hunston A (Planning MA 2013) LEC Project (Tutor: Dr Lindsay

Leeds City Council Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan; Headingley Hill:,%20hyde%20park%20and%20woodhouse%20moor.pdf

Leeds Edible Campus, accessed 07 07 14,

New Generation Transport Scheme, accessed 07 07 14,

String o' Beads original proposal, accessed 07 07 14,

Urban Pollinators, Leeds, accessed 07 07 14

You might also like