My colleague, Don Wilson, took the lead on this, determined that Christmas would not be cancelled in our area. First he secured the funding locally to make sure our communities got their traditional lights:

June Press Release: Christmas saved by local Councillors
Councillor Donald Wilson (Lib Dem, Rothwell) today announced the plans that are afoot to save Christmas lights.  The proposals would see Christmas trees and lights brighten up streets in Commercial Street, Rothwell weeks after the Council announced they were pulling the plug. Cllr Wilson has asked to use the South (Outer) Area Committee’s own money to ensure that Christmas gets the go-ahead.  The total earmarked for the Christmas light fund is £4,480 across the Rothwell area.  Cllr Wilson said:
“Getting our lights cut by the Civic Hall was a body blow locally and the local Councillors knew we had to solve this problem locally.
“It has been said time and again that Christmas lights are important for the local community in Rothwell.  The total cost is good value for money for our residents. They encourage people to shop in the local area and they cheer the town up during the darkest time of the year.
“Rothwell is used to being overlooked by the Council but we have a tradition of these popular community events being taken on by volunteers.  We’re discussing how to tackle the switch on event, but needless to say we will be doing our utmost to ensure that the hundreds of residents that turn out will be treated to a show.”

The funding ensured that there would still be “Carols Round the Tree” in Woodlesford, Carlton and outside Rothwell One Stop Shop. The only task to complete was seeing whether a Switch On Ceremony could be organised. Don discussed the matter immediately with the Rothwell & District Carnival Committee.  Although worn out after organising the best Summer Carnival yet, the Group agreed to look at it, knowing how important the event is to the community and to traders. Happily for us, they did not hesitate for long, and have taken on the challenge of a Christmas Carnival that promises to be quite an event. The Christmas Carnival will see a street market, entertainment , fun fair rides, and a brass band, all following on from the Christmas Fair at the Blackburn Hall on the same day, Saturday 26th November.

I understand that Aire Valley Homes have generously given a grant, and that this, added to the money the Carnival Committee raised at an excellent Quiz Night at the Blackburn Hall,should be enough to pay for a fireworks display, so the evening will finish with the traditional bang. A big thank you from the Lib Dem team to the Carnival Committee volunteers for making this happen.

The Council was forced to admit that there was not any alternative private accommodation in the area for those elderly facing being turfed out. That is why they have relented and allowed residents to stay on for now, but the Council has confirmed that they will withdraw from providing Council care on this site, as soon as an alternative is provided.

The Council’s preference was originally for the private sector to take over responsibility for the supply of residential accommodation as the Council withdrew. The activists acting to save Dolphin Manor soon realised that in the face of a Council determined to withdraw, that they would be best seeking to take over Dolphin Manor as a community trust. This would save the present building, protect staff interests, and keep the elderly residential provision small scale and intimate. All local councillors backed this option, and the Council has agreed to transfer Dolphin Manor to the Community subject to them agreeing that the Trust’s business case adds up.

The problem is, of course, that the people judging whether or not the business case stacks up are the same people who insisted that they could not see a way how services could be provided at better value for money. It is notoriously difficult to persuade the Council to hand over a significant asset to the community, but I am committed to ensuring that the significant local talent that is coming together to form this Trust gets the support and recognition that they deserve from the Council.

This is in the knowledge that should the Council consider the Trust to be unworkable, the other option on the table is for the land to be identified for a 60 bed private to be built, and then close not just Dolphin Manor, but also Home Lea which the Council classifies as “Subject to further review”.

So, although the current residents can be assured of a staying in their home, local to their families, there is still considerable uncertainty for our community about who is to provide and be responsible for our elderly in the not too distant future.

One thing that is certain, a decision on whether the Council is backing the Community Trust or not, must be taken within the next six months. The community originally learned the bad news about Dolphin Manor just days after the last election. To delay another key decision until the election is safely out of the way will destroy any faith left that many still have in the Council’s decision making.

Both sites are currently leased by Leeds City Council for allotment use, and this is a continuation of the leases originally set up by Rothwell Urban District Council before the First World War.

The Reservoir site was offered to Leeds City Council to buy a couple of years back, and officers asked local councillors for our views. We wholeheartedly supported the purchase, so you can imagine our surprise to discover that this transaction had not happened, and the site was once again being advertised for sale. Furthermore, the Council were thinking twice about buying the land, as ‘Rothwell had too many allotments’. I can confirm that after discussions I recently had with senior officers, they are now committed to buying the land.

If only this were so for the Victoria Site. The Council have told me that they could not afford the price that is being asked for the site, and that the site was Statutory Allotment land, so the plotholders were protected. As many of you know, I am a keen allotment grower, and I’m active in the Leeds & District Gardeners Federation. I used this hat to contact the National Society of Allotment Gardeners to seek their advice as to how we could best inform the Victoria Allotment plotholders of their rights if ownership of the site changed. It was at this point that it became clear that the site was not protected as Statutory allotment land, and the Council admitted this after looking more closely at the lease.

If any new owner chose to end the lease of the land for allotment use to Leeds City Council, then there would be nothing stopping the new owner in giving the plotholders just 12 months notice to quit the site. The only protection that is offered is that which is included in the Unitary Development Plan that guides planning decisions within Leeds:
Policy 1A of the UDP states:DEVELOPMENT OF LAND CURRENTLY USED AS ALLOTMENT GARDENS WILL NOT BE PERMITTED FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN OUTDOOR RECREATION, UNLESS THE NEED IN THE LOCALITY FOR GREENSPACE IS ALREADY MET AND A SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE SITE FOR ALLOTMENT GARDENS CAN BE IDENTIFIED.

The above guidance is fine if only we had to rely on the local Plans Panel to interpret it, but all too often, a landowner can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, and often local decisions are overturned. That is why I have written to the Director of the Council department responsible for allotment provision to buy the land at Victoria. It is the only option to guarantee that the site is retained for allotment use, and that the 53 allotment growers can continue to tend their plots in which they have invested so much time and energy. The money raised from allotment rents in the city is around £120,000, and the Council spends less than that on its allotment service. The previous administration introduced a year on year capital budget of £75,000 to spend on the improvement of allotments. This was in recognition of the unpaid work that Allotment Associations put in to the upkeep of these valuable green lungs. The Labour-run Council has slashed that by two thirds. If the previous budget had been maintained, the purchase of Victoria allotments would have happened by now. Even in an environment of reduced public spending, basic fairness says that the Council should sit back and let an allotment site be lost, when that Council already makes a profit out of its allotment holders.

Liberal Democrat group leader Cllr Stewart Golton (Rothwell), expressed surprise at the decision given the ruling administration’s policy of opposition to incineration on any site in Leeds. He claimed the decision was a u-turn.

Cllr Stewart Golton said:
‘Labour candidates campaigned over several years against building an incinerator in the Aire Valley. Since taking power 18 months ago, the Labour Party have been very quiet on their waste policy. I assumed they were working hard on an alternative. Imagine my surprise that their alternative to an incinerator is…an incinerator!’
‘The Labour leader Keith Wakefield promised a local referendum on Incineration in 2008, and Labour candidates now elected in Burmantofts, Temple Newsam and Rothwell told local residents a vote for them was a vote against incineration. Although there was a lot of talk about potential dangerous emissions, I have been informed that no extra safety specifications have been asked for since the project passed to the new Labour administration, so I assume those concerns have now evaporated.’

The Liberal Democrats believe that circumstances have changed so significantly, that the Council should step back and reconsider whether its first priority should be to build an incinerator of its own.

‘People tell us that they want to recycle as much as possible. The collection of food waste is a roaring success in Rothwell, and if spread to the rest of the city could make significant improvements to our recycling performance.’

At the same time the commercial operator, Biffa has plans to build their own Energy from Waste’ facility in the Aire Valley. Although intended to cater for commercial waste, they have already stated that they have the capacity to handle the city’s domestic waste. Questions are being asked whether a second incinerator is therefore even necessary.

Here is what she had to say: ”I’m disappointed that the Liberal Democrats have chosen to play politics with the lives of the people who will be affected by this. As a newly elected councillor I only found out about these plans myself after I had been elected. But before the election Councillor Golton was a member of the Council’s Executive Board which approved the decision to consider care homes and day care centres. The decision to go ahead with this consultation process was approved at an Executive Board Meeting in December 2010 and the Liberal Democrat Councillor who attended on behalf of Councillor Golton voted in favour of the proposals. So, given his involvement in this it’s rather hypoctritical of him to only now start making a noise about how it will affect people – something I’ve been concerned about since I first heard of the plans.”

Here are the facts: When this paper came before the Executive Board the Labour Party, as now, was in charge of the Council, and it was proposed by Cllr Lucinda Yeadon (Labour, Kirkstall). Being in charge, the Labour Party held eight of the twelve places on the Board, the others being held by the Leaders of the Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green and Morley Independent groups. Contrary to what Karen Bruce says, the only party not to vote for this paper was the Liberal Democrats. I was not able to attend for this item, and my Deputy was not allowed to vote. All eight Labour members did vote to approve the paper. Karen Bruce implies that the approval of this paper made it inevitable that Dolphin Manor and Rose Farm would be at risk. If so, why was she not campaigning from December 2010 to make sure that they weren’t? All I saw from Karen Bruce’s election literature was vitriol against Nick Clegg and the Coalition’s attempts to control the deficit – nothing on local issues.

The fact is that the paper put forward by her party colleagues made no proposals to specific closures, but was presented as intending to close facilities that were outdated, dilapidated and underoccupied so that others could be invested in and safeguarded. That is why the other Opposition Leaders felt secure to support it, but felt so betrayed when the proposed closures were finally announced. From Rothwell to Morley to Otley to Garforth, the awful truth rang out – facilities that were modern, well maintained, fully occupied and meeting local demand were being sacrificed on the criteria of “future expectations” to invest in facilities nearer the centre of Leeds.

The fact that these proposals were announced just days after the Labour party had made record gains asking people to vote for them to protect the vulnerable has left many voters feeling betrayed too. The fact that Karen Bruce says that she knew nothing of what was to come just underlines the attitude of Leeds Labour to outlying communities, and their candidates – Campaign and vote and on national trends, but take the local consequences. You’re expendable when we’re in power.

The two hours given over to debating white papers was dominated by arguing over whether Labour councillors had a “prejudicial interest” (and therefore could not vote) on a motion that called for the Council to stop paying the £400,000 annual wage bill of full time union convenors, as most had had unions contributing to their election campaigns. This meant that there was no time to debate the motion to halt the Residential Homes Closure plans, so the speech I had prepared, presenting the case for Dolphin Manor, was not heard. It was formally proposed, amended and voted on. The motion was lost after the Labour group accepted a Tory amendment, and the two parties voted together.

Morley/Lib Dem White Paper on Residential care homes:

“In light of the present financial challenges faced by Southern Cross Care Providers, concerns raised about private sector care standards in a private care hospital exposed by a recent Panorama programme and the Dilnot Commission on funding of care and support which is to report its recommendations next month, this Council agrees to withdraw its proposals to consider closing its residential care homes across the City Council area.”

Conservative amendment:

“In light of the present financial challenges faced by Southern Cross Care Providers, concerns raised about private sector care standards in a private care hospital exposed by a recent Panorama programme and the Dilnot Commission on funding of care and support which is to report its recommendations next month, this Council believes that a new approach to funding and delivery of social care is required. Council further believes that across the country, care standards in both public and privately operated care homes have, in some cases, been unacceptable and calls on the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to improve its approach to inspecting these facilities with a view to improving the overall standard of elderly care provided in residential care homes. This Council understands the significant cost implications of continuing to deliver an “in-house” focused residential care service for the city’s older people alongside the urgent need to improve and rationalise Council owned facilities to meet decent standards and believes that through effective consultation with service users and their families a more sustainable service model can be achieved.”

Over 2000 people have signed our petition and those who have yet to sign up can do so via this website. I must stress that only part of this success is due to us councillors. We have been outside Morrison’s and on the doorstep gathering signatures, but many others have been taking petition sheets and knocking on neighbours doors, taking it to neighbourhood coffee mornings and asking local shop keepers to encourage their customers to sign up. Thanks in particular go to Sara, Maureen, Ronnie, Mike, Jan and Sylvia (you know who you are, but I won’t embarrass you by including your surnames!).

My colleague Don Wilson and I arranged a meeting at Butcher Lane Methodist Church at the end of May to bring together residents, relatives and supporters to share ideas about how to make our campaign most effective. One of the points raised at the meeting was that a petition was good, but that individual letters of objection from as many people as possible would be even better. Once again, I won’t embarrass the grandson of one of the residents, who worked hard to write an excellent letter, by mentioning his surname (Thank you, James), but his legally trained arguments are available here to download, amend to make personal to you, and send off to Cllr Lucinda Yeadon (Labour, Kirkstall) who is the politician responsible for Adult Services (lucinda.yeadon@leeds.gov.uk).

The Rothwell Tenants and Residents Association have taken a leading role in campaigning on this issue, and it was good to see them working with relatives of those affected to distribute objection letters at the Rothwell Carnival this weekend. They have also organised a public meeting to discuss the proposed closures at the Buthcher Lane Methodist Church on 19th July at 7pm. Please come and see how you can help.

I am well aware that many who have taken an active role in getting signatures for the petition and encouraging locals to sign letters of objection are not necessarily natural Lib Dem supporters, and that is why we’ve tried to keep the campaign as politically neutral as possible.

I have jointly sponsored, with the Leader of the Morley Independents on Leeds City Council, Cllr Robert Finnegan, a motion calling on the Council to halt and take stock of its proposals to close homes and day care centres, given the recent concerns over standards of care and the threat of closures in the private sector. This will be debated at the Civic Hall on Wednesday 13th July, at around 5pm. Please come and listen to the debate if you can.

Last month the rugby league club announced that it was staying put at its current ground, the Rapid Solicitors stadium, for the time being and would carry out improvements in the hope that it could retain its Super League status. But the Wildcats have not changed their plans for a new stadium on a site off the M62 at Newmarket, which borders the Leeds and Wakefield council areas.

The announcement of the improvements to the present stadium may lead some to think the Newmarket Lane plans are no longer on the table. This could not be further from the truth. No matter how much we might want Wakefield Wildcats to stay where they are, the plans for a new stadium are still being pursued, so local objectors must still keep a close eye on this. We don’t have a problem with much of the proposal for a new stadium for the Wildcats. But the plan for a massive haulage distribution centre on a 250 acre green field site is a big worry for local people. It will add a huge load of traffic to heavily congested stretches of the M62 and M1 and will also cause us to lose a very big  chunk of green space.