Rothwell Labour councillors’ response to site allocations in Rothwell, Oulton, Woodlesford and Carlton

Green field Karen and DavidHere are the comments so far from me and my ward colleague Cllr David Nagle on the site allocations proposed for the Rothwell ward. We’ve actively asked local people to tell us what they think of the proposed site allocations and I’ve tried to include as much as possible of what local people have told us, along with our three neighbourhood forums in Rothwell, Oulton & Woodlesford and Carlton. Any further input would be very welcome and amendments and additions can be made. Pictures are around the ward and not necessarily site specific, to break up and illustrate the large amount of text in this post.

Leeds City Council has produced its local plan showing land that could be available for housing during the next 15 years. The government requires the council to do this and make new land available to show there is enough supply. Any development would still need planning permission in the normal way and some sites, especially those in later phases will not be built for some years.

Despite our strenuous objections the draft plan still includes some sites for housing which we feel are unsuitable. We are submitting our formal response to the public consultation on the site allocations process on behalf of local people and there is still time for local people to have their say before the deadline of 5pm on Monday 16 November 2015. We have taken into account residents’ and neighbourhood forum comments we’ve received so far and will continue to listen to what people have to say up to the deadline date as we make our submission. Woodlesford and Oulton Neighbourhood Forum with our backing are asking for an extension of four weeks to this deadline for consultation for the Outer South area to allow time for a possible announcement on HS2 to be taken into account in submissions, it is unknown at this time whether this will be granted.

Our stance is that we firmly believe that our green belt should not be built on while there are brownfield sites anywhere in Leeds. It’s lovely here because we’re surrounded by green fields and we want to keep it that way. It’s important to stand up for our area along with local people and our neighbourhood forums, making our voices as a community heard!

The government informed all councils they needed to develop a plan to show land for housing for the next 15 years and planning laws have been relaxed to encourage building of homes. Sites allocated for housing in the outer south area which covers Rothwell are 4% of the total, which is lower than most of the other areas in Leeds. However, we are concerned that some green belt land is included. The public consultation process is a chance for everyone to have a say on where future development might be.

We were assured by planning officers that through the consultation, well thought through changes could be made to the site allocation proposals. Historically, Leeds had a sequential brownfield-first policy. This meant, simply, that with more than 340 brownfield sites available across the city, Leeds was demonstrating not only local supply but also protecting greenbelt sites from speculative development requests. Indeed, there are currently many brownfield sites with live planning permissions in place for in excess of 10,000 homes. These would, based on current housing projections and population growth forecasts, deliver sufficient land supply for at least ten years.

The list of Council owned brownfield sites, and their current standings, is available here:

This clearly shows, I believe, that there is actually no need to actively progress sensitive land supply. So why is Leeds being asked to forfeit greenbelt sites, when there are live permissions granted and a brownfield supply available to satisfy the housing needs of the city for at least a decade?

The simple answer is that there has been a loss of local planning control due to the demands of the Government and the Government Inspector. In Leeds there have been ten successful appeals from developers who had submitted applications for housing development on greenbelt land. All were planning permissions rejected by Leeds City Council, in line with the sequential brownfield policy, but later passed by the Government Planning Inspector. And this was replicated on sensitive sites up and down the country.

Developers now have the right to submit applications on any land in any location, with a guarantee of winning on appeal, unless the council can demonstrate sufficient land supply. And this land supply must be adequate across each HMCA.

HMCAs were established through the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), which was prepared by consultants for the council through 2010 and published in 2011.  They were designed to reflect market areas that people relate to when they are looking for a house; they also relate to the four affordable housing zones.

Rothwell ward, which also includes Woodlesford, Oulton and Carlton, is in the Outer South HMCA.

It is clear that without a plan and agreed numbers that could demonstrate a 15 year land supply, the alternative would be to lose appeal after appeal. We would be faced with rampant development across every area of the Rothwell ward, with little or no Town & Country Planning Section 106 monies (the funds paid by builders to develop infrastructure or its replacement, the Community Infrastructure Levy).  The council effectively had to negotiate a housing number with the Government and demonstrate it was working towards a site allocation plan. And while it may not guarantee stopping speculative development, it is the only way to ensure it is much less likely to succeed and satisfy the Government Planning Inspector as to land supply.

When the government inspector overturns local planning decisions at appeal, the cost is picked up by you, the local taxpayer. The Government having relaxed the planning rules, has, in effect, taken the final say away from local councils.

Site specific comments:


HG2-173 Haighside

The site is unsustainable and is therefore unsound and not justified because

  • The infrastructure of Rothwell and in the immediate vicinity around the top of Wood Lane cannot cope with the sheer IMG_8186scale of this development:
  • We strongly believe this site on open green belt land is unsuitable for such a potential housing development. It is not justified to remove this site in preference to other rejected Green Belt sites where they do not fulfil as important a role in Green Belt terms as this site.
  • This site represents urban sprawl.
  • This site serves as an important gap between Rothwell and Robin Hood – building on this gap would see Rothwell sprawling towards Robin Hood.
  • Access to such a large site through existing residential streets and also near to the busy and problematic T junction at Jaw Bones cannot be justified when other sites with better access have been rejected as site allocations
  • There are sites in the Outer South that were identified as Green in the Issues and Options consultation, specifically land at Hope Farm, Robin Hood, which were assessed against the Site Methodology more favourably but have been rejected for reason of local preference for other sites. There is no local preference from the Rothwell community for the site at Haigh Side. We have been contacted by many residents who are unhappy with Haigh Side being allocated as a housing site.
  • This area off Wood Lane is unsuitable for major development due to infrastructure and facilities not being in place so it is unsustainable. There is very little in the way of services and facilities at this top end of Rothwell which makes this site an unsound element of the council’s plan. We don’t believe that this site has been positively prepared, justified, effectively or consistently with national policy. Therefore, we believe it should be removed from the council’s plan.
  • The highways network is unsuitable. Already problematic situation at T-junction at Jaw Bones, at the end of Wood Lane. At rush hour residents have reported to us suffering regular long delays at this bottle neck and journey times into Leeds from Rothwell, being held back at the traffic lights whilst traffic is allowed to flow on the main Wakefield to Leeds road.
  • Protection of Haigh Side Wood (off Low Shops Lane). Working with the Rothwell Neighbourhood Forum and the council, we are working for improvements to bring it up to community asset standard and ensure protection of the wood. We have already had an independent expert visit the wood with us to provide guidance on how best to do this. This wood, the beck and surrounding countryside are important to this area of Rothwell.
  • The presence of power lines could make development problematic and compromise needed to accommodate these could result in a poor quality development. Could this large number of housing be delivered here given these constraints and if not, what additional land would be needed to make up for the shortfall?
  • Local schools are already at capacity. For a development this size a new primary school would have to be planned for as part of the site, with part of land needed to provide a new school. A school on a different site in Robin Hood without housing development is not justified and it is not justified not to have a school here if the site remains as an allocation.
  • Locals already have to wait to see a doctor. For a development of this size a new doctor’s surgery would be necessary and planned for, with part of land needed for new surgery.
  • Public transport needs would need to be catered for with a development of this size and development couldn’t happen until improvements are made.
  • It is planned that the new NGT trolleybus system will come as far as Stourton, However, we feel that this would have no effect on the road situation coming out of Rothwell at Jaw Bones end and in our view additional residential development in the area would exacerbate current problems. We feel that the current infrastructure would not be able to cope with a large residential development at this site and feel that these concerns have not yet been addressed.
  • If such a large development was to remain in the housing plan in Rothwell, we would need the next leg of NGT to come directly through Rothwell, to be of benefit to our community and cope with the population increase and increase in movement of people.
  • This site is included for phase 2. If this, in our view, unsuitable development was still to be included in the plan this site, if approved should not be released until Phase 3 as if a review is carried out by the Council on housing numbers this allocation may not be required and could be retained as Greenbelt.

HG2-174 Wood Lane next to Garden Centre

The site is unsustainable and is therefore unsound and not justified because

  • We strongly believe this site on green belt land is unsuitable for such a potential housing development.
  • This area off Wood Lane is unsuitable for major development due to infrastructure and facilities not being in place so it is unsustainable. There is very little in the way of services and facilities at this top end of Rothwell which makes this site unsound element of the council’s plan. We don’t believe that this site has been positively prepared, justified, effectively or consistently with national policy. Therefore, we believe it should be removed from the council’s plan.
  • Traffic situation at T-junction at Jaw Bones, at the end of Wood Lane. At rush hour residents have reported to us suffering regular long delays at this bottle neck.
  • Local schools are already full. For a development this size a new primary school would have to be planned for, with part of land needed to provide a new school.
  • Locals already have to wait to see a doctor. For a development of this size a new doctor’s surgery would be necessary and planned for, with part of land needed for new surgery.
  • Public transport needs would need to be catered for with a development of this size and development couldn’t happen until improvements are made.

HG2-183 Swithens Street

The site is unsustainable and is therefore unsound and not justified because

  • This site is on green belt land. Brownfield land should be built on first.
  • Traffic situation and local roads. The access to this site would be horrendous. Swithens Street is a farm road leading up to Swithens Farm and cannot cope with such a development. Tractors and horses are a regular feature. Residents should write from their own perspective of this. It is very narrow at the bottom of Swithens Street.
  • Local schools are already full.
  • Locals already have to wait to see a doctor.
  • In the plan this site is potentially for older people. Being situated on a hill it is unsuitable for older people’s housing. It is not suitable for scooters and is a steep hill for older people to walk up.

HG2-175 Bullough Lane

The site is not justified or effective unless several issues are resolved

  • Local concerns around this site are that access to the site should not be through the John O’ Gaunts estate. This estate would not be able to cope with an influx of extra vehicular traffic into a new development. This could be a danger to local children playing and other local residents living on the estate.
  • A suggestion was made at the recent Rothwell neighbourhood forum that a site in this vicinity could lend itself to access towards the motor way. This would make it much easier to access.

New Site which has not previously been considered

Motor Auctions site, Rothwell

  • This is one of the few brown field sites within the housing characteristic area, which is an important consideration bearing in mind that all proposed allocated sites within Rothwell are Greenfield sites.
  • We strongly believe that where possible brownfield sites should be built on before greenfield sites, which should only ever be built on as a last resort.
  • The site is flat and regular in shape. Is contained by the A630 to the North and Stybank Lane to the East. It can be easily accessed both from the Pontefract Road and Stybank Lane boundaries.
  • Stybank Lane provides direct access to Rothwell and the A630 provides direct access to Leeds.
  • There is a range of local amenities close by, including recreation fields, pubs and restaurants and a Tesco Express supermarket is within easy access, together with a children’s nursery soon to be built. However in common with all proposed allocated sites in Rothwell, there is a shortfall in education provision. If the whole motor auctions site was utilized for development there would also be a possibility of locating school provision on the site.
  • The site lends itself well to development without being intrusive to the existing community without it being overseen and therefore the visual impact for the community will be lessened .The development itself would be well screened from the adjacent roads.
  • The sites is at present primarily used to store motor vehicles that are sold through a motor auction business at the site. This site would be valuable for housing use and if provision could be made for the auction business within the Aire Valley this would be much more justifiable for Rothwell than wholly relying on the use of agricultural mostly greenbelt/greenfield land.

New greenspace sites for consideration

Haighside Wood

This site is suitable for inclusion in the Site Allocation Plan;

  • This Wood, which is owned by Leeds City Council, has been in the past the subject of reclamation and upgrading work (together with associated and linked former railway tracks). A number of other former railway track routes already constitute Green Space and the addition of Haighside Wood and the former tracks would considerably strengthen the network.
  • In this part of Rothwell there is a lack of wooded areas and Haighside Wood is a hub for wildlife due to the connectivity it presently enjoys with the Haigh Beck and the aforementioned tracks. At the same time the Wood is accessed by a public footpath (Public Footpath No 54) that allows public access. This means it is accessible for community use. It has the potential to be a community asset and be further upgraded and used even more. Councillors and Rothwell Neighbourhood Forum are working with the council to make improvements to bring the wood up to community asset standard.
  • Haigh Beck comes from a spring local to Haighside Wood and flows down toward Rothwell Centre and through Spring Head Park, we understand, as the River Dolphin, eventually becoming Oulton Beck.

Swithens Plantation

This site is suitable for inclusion in the Site Allocation Plan;

We support the Rothwell Neighbourhood Forum’s position on Swithens Plantation.

Swithens Plantation is a mature wood that has not been recognised as a Green Space, but is an important component of local green infrastructure. Though the wood resides on private land, it provides a positive contribution to biodiversity emanating from its level of maturity and connectivity to the large tract of land that is Oulton Hall golf course. To omit the plantation from the Green Space allocation is considered not to be justifiable in the context of the aims and functions of the Strategic Green Infrastructure Network and is a natural habitat worthy of designation.

Woodlesford and Oulton

The government’s preferred route of HS2 through Woodlesford has a significant impact onIMG_5854.jpg proposed site allocations in the Woodlesford and Oulton areas and should be taken fully into account. Residents nearby are in limbo and their lives have effectively been put ‘on hold’. As Woodlesford is being expected by the government to take the devastation that HS2 coming through would cause and having to take a share of the toll from national infrastructure, this cannot be ignored when looking at site allocations.

Not enough affordable housing or bungalows. The Woodlesford and Oulton neighbourhood forum has identified the need for bungalows for local people moving to retirement homes to enable them to stay in the local area.

MX2-14 Coopers Garage

This site could be suitable for mixed use development. We don’t want to lose this site as a business site but in the plan it assumes that the garage will be destroyed. This location is potentially suitable for older people’s housing being close to amenities. Flooding could be an issue.

  • Site currently occupied by Cooper’s garage, one of the major sources of employment in Oulton and Woodlesford.
  • The site has been reclassified for mixed development, this could allow for the garage business to remain as part of the site.
  • We would support the southern part of the site to be developed to strengthen the Oulton village hub.
  • The site would be ideal for housing for elderly persons. Being well situated for this, being near to shops, post office and a café and on a bus route. Such a development will increase the site’s capacity.
  • Frontage on to Midland Street has potential for development of a further terrace of two-bedroom houses similar to those recently developed further up Midland Street .

HG2-180 between Fleet Lane and Methley Lane

We believe the site is unsustainable and is therefore unsound and not justified because the site:

  • Is within the Greenbelt
  • Includes a special landscape area (SLA), Methley Lane, being one of only 18 in the whole of the Leeds area. T
  • represents urban sprawl
  • Doesn’t round off the village as there are green fields to three sides
  • is further encroachment into the open countryside
  • has no strong boundary to check future encroachment of the Greenbelt on both sides of Methley Lane
  • does not meet exceptional circumstances for Greenbelt release as outlined in the NPPF and the Core Strategy
  • this will be a car dependent site
  • destroy the setting and high scenic quality of the SLA
  • be visually harmful and will destroy its attractive character and appearance
  • have a detrimental effect on the habitat network running through the site
  • destroy this area as a well-used amenity for walking/dog walking over many years
  • spoil local views
  • not preserve the setting and view of the adjacent Oulton Conservation Area
  • there are no buses to Rothwell, the local Town Centre and other bus services are not frequent
  • too far a distance to Woodlesford train station
  • car dependent site
  • it will damage the area on environmental grounds
  • the infrastructure is not available to support a development of this size
  • It is proposed to have a through road from Fleet Lane and Methley Lane. We feel that this would become a rat run and do not want a cut through.

HG2-179 Fleet Lane/Eshald Lane

The site is unsustainable and is therefore unsound and not justified because:

  • It is Greenbelt
  • would represent urban sprawl
  • would be further encroachment into our local open countryside
  • is outside the settlement boundary, so represents settlement extension not a rounding off of the settlement
  • has no strong boundary to check future encroachment into the Greenbelt on both sides of Fleet Lane
  • does not meet exceptional circumstances for Greenbelt release as outlined in the NPPF and the Core Strategy
  • agricultural land

HG2-176 (4082) Windlesford Green, Holmsley Lane, Woodlesford015.jpg

  • This is a Brownfield site
  • This site should be developed with supported accommodation for older people, which could form a ‘care’ hub adding to existing amenities. The council has been working with the Dolphin Manor Trust over several years to provide a new care home and is also talking about options for extra care housing and new nursing home provision. This site is a good one to utilise for such plans and should serve to cater for Rothwell’s future older population for their care needs and we would like to see this run in partnership with the local trust for local people.

HG2-177 (136) Alma Villas, Woodlesford

  • Brown Field Site.
  • Not far from HS2 route.
  • Site is on a slope and has contains mature trees that should be preserved..
  • Site is an awkward shape.
  • Poor vehicle access via Alma Street.
  • Challenging site but could have potential with creativity.

HG2-178 (143) Aberford Road – site of Glenoit and Minerva Mills, Oulton

  • Flood alleviation scheme completed.
  • Currently government’s proposed HS2 route would have major impact.
  • If presently proposed HS2 route is kept, then mixed development might still be possible. Small business premises and a restaurant might still be compatible.
  • If HS2 route revised, ideal site for canal-side flats and restaurant.
  • Concentration on flats will increase site capacity.


HG2-182 and HG1- 410 Main Street, CarltonCarlton-field.jpg

These sites use for development is not justified or effective unless several issues are resolved:

  • HG2-182 is a brownfield site opposite the Unicorn Inn. Identified as potentially improving visual aspect of area if developed. Highways have commented that there is limited frontage with Main Street, so development would need to be combined with HG1-410
  • HG2- 182 includes farm and farm buildings and land between Main Street and Ashton Crescent which are a renowned cornerstone of the rhubarb triangle. Tours of the sheds have featured on national television. The site sits at the heart of the Rhubarb triangle and the local bed and breakfast business and the Unicorn Inn do trade from this. It is unclear from these proposals what a future operation would continue as. It is vital that any development that takes place in this location needs to sensitively account for the traditions, history and heritage of what was and is still a small rural village.
  • Part of this site is also used for the annual local Rhubarbfest celebrations, when the road is closed off and the Carlton community comes together with live music, rides, stalls etc. This is one of the highlights of the Carlton community calendar. Part of this land is the subject of a community bid to become a community asset.
  • G1-410 contains some grassland and a number of increasingly mature trees that were planted by the community. The community would not wish to lose these trees.
  • The site would involve a junction immediately opposite the Unicorn Public House. The Main Street is a very narrow road and the pavements are extremely narrow and do not meet modern standards. Carlton infrastructure is not able to accommodate a significant level of development being a small village.
  • There are already drainage problems in the village and in particular around the Main Street/New Road area.
  • Local school is at capacity and no room on the site for expansion.
  • This site is used as an overflow car park for the village, this is particularly important given that the main car park used for the village on Town Street has been lost to development.
  • The nearest doctor’s surgery is Lofthouse Surgery, many residents of Carlton are registered there. It is at capacity and recently had a planning application refused to extend the surgery to two levels as it already has problems with parking capacity.

There is still some time left to submit your own comments on the site allocation during the public consultation period which ends at 5pm on Monday 16 November. Details on the site allocation plan can be found on the Council’s website at: where you can also submit comments.

Email comments can be sent to

You can copy us in at and

Rothwell Labour opposes fracking as licences are issued

nofrackingway graphic

The government has granted licenses to energy companies to launch exploratory drilling for fracking throughout the north. One of the license blocks due to be issued includes the Rothwell ward including around Rothwell, Woodlesford, Oulton and Carlton and other areas in south east Leeds like Kippax and Methley and in the adjoining Wakefield areas.

The Conservative government has promised to ‘deliver’ on shale gas and expedite its extraction despite growing opposition to fracking. While the government is braced for a row with environmental campaigners, local government leaders and some MPs over the plans, ministers have become frustrated at the failure to get the UK fracking industry off the ground.

Fracking applications are to be fast-tracked through the planning system under new rules intended to kick-start the shale gas revolution. The guidance, will strengthen the power of ministers to step in and wrest decisions from local authorities if planners are perceived to be obstructive.

Who’s promised to oppose fracking near Rothwell?

This link shows which candidates for Elmet and Rothwell and for the rest of the country opposed fracking at the general election in May. Cllr Stewart Golton, the Lib Dem parliamentary candidate (and local Rothwell councillor) and Alec Shelbrooke MP did not give a pledge to oppose fracking, whilst Veronica King, the Labour Party candidate, and Dave Brooks, the Green party candidate, both gave their pledges to oppose fracking.

Labour’s policy is that it wants tougher conditions – including 12 months’ monitoring of conditions before drilling to ensure there is a robust baseline against which to check whether any seismic activity or methane in groundwater is the result of fracking.

CllrDavid Nagle speaking on fracking in full council photoRothwell councillor David Nagle recently poke in full council expressing concerns over possible fracking locally. Local people are contacting me and David expressing their concerns.

We’re calling for all local fracking exploration licenses to be withdrawn immediately and that there should be a complete halt on fracking and exploratory drilling and preparation work until environmental and public health concerns have been addressed.”

It’s alarming that just as with planning for new housing the national government wants to ride rough shod over the views of local people by introducing new rules that let government ministers force local councils into allowing development and planning that local people oppose.

The local Labour party has set up an online petition which is quickly gaining momentum. We also have a paper petition and we gathered signatures at our Labour councillors’ stall at the Woodlesford Park Fun Day recently. Please add your name to the online petition if you want to register your opposition to fracking coming to Rothwell, Woodlesford, Oulton and Carlton.

Rothwell residents’ victory over Aldi


Rothwell councillor Karen Bruce at AldiYesterday I spoke at the planning panel to argue on behalf of residents and the Rothwell Neighbourhood Forum about a planning application from Aldi to build a new supermarket in Rothwell on the site of Ashleigh Signs. Aldi had applied for permission for the new supermarket to close at 10:00pm which I and local residents felt was far too late. I was angry that in the original paper Leeds City Council planning officers had caved into Aldi and agreed to accept the late opening and recommended the application for approval.

Aldi thought it could treat local people with contempt and despite having agreed to me and Cllr David Nagle an earlier time and in an email to Rothwell Neighbourhood Forum that it would accept 9:00pm as a closing time it still applied for 10:00pm.

Right up until yesterday morning before the meeting I was continuing to lobby planning officers and eventually got them to concede that Aldi had privately agreed to 9:00pm. At the meeting I spoke up for local people and argued in favour of the store, but against late night opening and deliveries. I argued that it was disgraceful that Aldi was still lobbying to to open later, despite privately having agreed to an earlier time.

After a long debate by councillors on the planning panel they eventually agreed with me and David Nagle and granted planning permission for the new supermarket, but with restrictions to make it close at 9:00pm. This was a sensible compromise from the 8:00pm that I wanted and the 10:00pm that Aldi wanted. It was important to have this limit as the Aldi site is surrounded by housing including sheltered bungalows and family housing with small children.

I’m delighted that planning permission has been granted as overall it will bring benefits to Rothwell. The new supermarket will create new jobs and offer local people more choice and provide much needed competition to Morrisons. Many residents have told me that they would like a cheaper alternative in these tough times and that Morrisons wouldn’t have such a stranglehold on Rothwell, as it owns a large chunk of the town centre.

The planning approval also addressed some of our other concerns such as about highways and access. The busy junction at Butcher Lane will be widened by taking some of the land where the new Aldi will be built. It also included a Section 106 agreement to improve electronic public transport information and on local jobs. I want to see any new jobs first going to local people and I have asked Aldi to organise a jobs fair and for a jobs guarantee for people who live in Rothwell, Carlton, Oulton and Woodlesford, Aldi was agreeable to this during talks and we will be calling on it to make sure this actually happens.

Local elections for Leeds City Council

Next Thursday 7 May it’s both the general election and the local elections for Leeds City Council. After serving the people of Rothwell, Woodlesford, Oulton and Carlton for the last four years I’m up for re-election this year.

This is a copy of the Rothwell News leaflet that local Labour Party and community volunteers are delivering to every house in Rothwell – almost 9,000. In the last four years I’ve met many of you at community events, when doing my roving advice sessions on your street or when knocking on doors, but with 16,000 voters it’s inevitable I’ve missed meeting some of you!

I’ve deliberately kept it up beat and positive instead of criticising other parties as that’s what politics should be like in 2015, sadly the local Liberal Democrats don’t agree and have made most of their leaflet negative and nasty.

Rothwell News local election 2015

Sadly had to deliver letter to Rothwell Liberal Democrat candidate

I love election time and campaigning, another chance to communicate with voters and put forward the positive and hard work I’ve done for and with local people and hand over to them to decide on my record whether to re-elect me to continue to represent the Rothwell ward, my home. That’s why my election address is 100% positive. I know I’ve worked hard on behalf of our community and fought very hard when our ward is under any threat.

So it’s very upsetting when the Liberal Democrat candidate’s election address is full of personal attacks and untruths about me and the Rothwell Labour team.  This has meant I’ve had to break from both campaigning and working for the community in the Rothwell ward at this busy time to take a trip outside the ward to personally deliver this letter to the Liberal Democrat candidate at his home address.

I won’t let the bully boys win though, this Liberal Democrat nastiness won’t stop me putting my best foot forward and continuing to post some of my achievements regularly on our Rothwell News Facebook page so voters can judge for themselves.


Dear Ben

I was disappointed to read your election address as it contains many personal attacks and misleading statements about me and the Labour team. I am therefore giving you an opportunity to apologise publicly as you probably don’t realise you are potentially breaching Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 regarding false statements about candidates.

As your leaflet contains several lies about me I ask that you please cease distribution immediately and deliver an apology to every household that has received your previous communication.

The facts are these:

Incinerator – it is a lie to say I opposed an incinerator when I was elected in 2011

When Leeds City Council was run by a coalition led by Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors I did campaign against an incinerator being built that would have a major adverse impact on the Rothwell ward. The councillor in charge of wanting an incinerator was your former Lib Dem council colleague Steve Smith. When I stood against and beat Steve Smith in 2011 I did NOT campaign against an incinerator as he and your Liberal Democrat colleagues had already made the decision to build one. It is therefore a lie to claim I was elected on “a ticket to oppose the incinerator”.

I therefore require an immediate public apology and for you to inform every elector that when elected in 2011 it was not on “a ticket to oppose an incinerator”.

Dolphin Manor – it is a lie to say I u-turned

I did not “u-turn” on Dolphin Manor as I opposed its closure from the very first instant I heard about it. I immediately informed the executive board member in charge of Dolphin Manor that I would campaign to save it and look for ways to keep it open. That is why when the option of moving it into community ownership was put forward I supported it.

It is therefore a lie to say I u-turned and I require an immediate public apology from you and for you to inform every elector that I in fact opposed the closure of Dolphin Manor and support community ownership.

Streetlights – I have not done a u-turn

Local Liberal Democrats have previously issued leaflets which falsely claim that streets in Rothwell face a ‘blackout’ such as one with the headline “Say NO to the BLACKOUT”. In fact not a single street in the ward is facing a blackout. Your Liberal Democrat colleague Cllr Stewart Golton was challenged to name one and was unable to do so.

My position has remained 100% consistent that I will oppose a blackout of streets in Rothwell or where there is actual evidence that partially switching off street lights pose a threat to public safety. There has been no ‘u-turn’ by me on streetlights. I think it is sensible to help save the environment, and save council tax payer’s money, by turning off lights that aren’t needed. Where inappropriate lights have been identified for part night time switch off I have alerted council officers and ensured that they stay on.

In your leaflet you quote several anecdotes from Cllr Golton about petty crime, but fail to point out that crime in Rothwell has actually fallen. Maybe that’s because Cllr Golton failed to inform you of the facts, as he frequently fails to inform his constituents of the truth.

I’m surprised that you would appear to prefer to help destroy the environment and waste council tax payer’s money.

Windmill – it is a lie to say “Community Committee Chairs had been discussing the community centre closure review since at least July last year”

The first mention of the community centre review on any of the minutes of the Community Chairs’ Forum was the 26 August 2014 meeting. This was in item 2.2 which was a reference back to item 2.3 on the minutes of the 1 July 2014 meeting. Item 2.3 of the 1 July meeting was about community centres, but not about the community centre review. In fact it was about internet broadband, ALMO community buildings, booking centres online and that a “report about amending the pricing and lettings policy will be going to the Exec Board”.

The first reference to the community centre review that I am aware of is in the minutes of the executive board on 16 July 2014. As you are aware I don’t sit on the council’s executive board, however your colleague Cllr Stewart Golton does.

Members of the management committee and trust will confirm that I was the first councillor to alert the group to Windmill being listed in the review.

I therefore require an apology to acknowledge that I was not aware of the community centre review in July and that the first Rothwell councillor to be officially aware of it was Cllr Golton.

HS2 – it is a lie to say I failed to “vote against party lines” at full council as there has been nothing relevant to vote against

The only votes to decide if the HS2 route goes through Woodlesford and the amount and criteria for compensation will be taken in the Westminster parliament.

Leeds City Council has no responsibility for determining the HS2 route or compensation paid to residents affected by it therefore there has been nothing relevant put forward at council to vote against. There has been no vote at Leeds City Council to determine either of these things. I am continuing to work with local residents on a change of route and improved compensation.

I therefore require an immediate apology to clarify that there has not been a vote.


I am opposed to development on greenfield sites locally. I was the only Rothwell councillor to speak up for the community at the planning meeting to remove PAS at Royds Lane and Fleet Lane. The core strategy plan that you refer to is about housing and planning in the whole of Leeds and not just part of it.

I looked forward to receiving your reply by Monday 4 May 2015.


Yours sincerely


Cllr Karen Bruce