Only the best future care for Rothwell older folk

Yew Tree Court extra careI recently went to have a look at extra care housing to see if it would be a good option for residents in Rothwell, Woodlesford, Oulton and Carlton in the future should they need extra support in their later years. I visited Yew Tree House in Moor Allerton with executive board member and Ardsley and Robin Hood councillor Lisa Mulherin.

The visit comes following recent meetings with the council and Dolphin Manor Trust where the council has asked Dolphin Manor Trust to work with it to possibly provide a modern extra care housing with care rather than a traditional care home.

Initially we were disappointed that the original plans to have the community trust build a new home weren’t going ahead. I’m still angry about the process and how the decision was made. But it appears that the silver lining is that Rothwell could end up with much better provision for older people.

I think It’s great that residents have their own flat within a care setting, I was impressed. It was certainly good to see for myself so I know what it’s all about when we’re discussing future care and housing needs for our older people in Rothwell, Woodlesford, Oulton, Carlton and neighbouring areas.

The real test was talking to residents who think it’s great.  The big difference that struck me between extra care and a care home is that in a care home residents only have a personal bedroom. In extra care they have a whole apartment with kitchen area and separate living room, and one or two bedrooms within the home. They have every bit as much quality care available as in a traditional care home. There was also an onsite restaurant, hair salon and residents have their own ‘front door’ within the care centre.

Plans for an extra care centre could also include a ‘Social Hub’ where refreshments are available for residents and visitors to enjoy at their convenience and the wider community, especially older folk still living in their own homes who might feel lonely sometimes can get involved and socialise in a great modern environment. I think working with Dolphin Manor trust we could create a community hub.

We’re keen for Dolphin Manor to stay on board and work with us to achieve this for Rothwell. Working with the trust and providing extra care for Rothwell folk as a social enterprise, we believe will provide the best solution to future local care needs.

Now I have seen with my own eyes I’ve  seen for myself that it is a better option. I’ve looked at care homes personally for my Dad a few years ago and I know what’s out there. I visited a lot of care homes, at the time if I’d known something like this was available I would have jumped at the chance for my Dad instead of a care home.

Extra care is seen by many as the future of care for older people. Many locals I’ve spoken to already, say if they ever needed support, they’d prefer to have their own kitchenette, lounge, bathroom and storage as well as a bedroom. People will be able to keep more of their personal belongings and have somewhere to have their own space when they need it. Visitors will be able to visit and sit in a personal lounge, not either the communal lounge or in a personal bedroom in a care home.

The local Liberal Democrats are falsely claiming that the council don’t now want to work with the Dolphin Manor Trust. Nothing could be further from the truth as the council has expressly said that it wants to work with Dolphin Manor Trust but to provide a modern state of the art extra care centre for the people of Rothwell, Woodlesford, Oulton, Carlton and neighbouring areas.

Local people will remember the Lib Dems’ record on older folks’ accommodation when they and the Tories were running the council together a few years ago. The Lib Dems closed down popular Holmsley Field House in Woodlesford.

The most important thing to me is that the people I represent have the best and that’s what I’ll be working towards. It’s the right thing to do. Hopefully with the Dolphin Manor Trust, as I believe by working together we could create something special for Rothwell.

A new care home, Oulton Manor, is being built on the old Bentley Arms site next to Rothwell Sports centre with around 80 beds and the council are also working on plans to provide a nursing home to fill the gap for those in need of the most support. With an extra care housing centre, a new care home and a new nursing home in the pipeline, this will give local people the widest possible range and choice as they find that they or their loved ones require extra support in the Rothwell area.

We would like to ask local people what they think of extra care housing plans. Some locals have already told me and commented on our Rothwell News Facebook page that their personal preference if they should ever need a care setting would be for extra care housing with their own space. Please get in touch and tell us what you think by emailing, commenting on here or our Facebook page (just search Rothwell News).

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:

http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/documents/s128976/240315%20Scrutiny%20Brownfield%20Land%20APPENDIX%201.pdf

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:

Rothwell

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.

Carlton

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: http://www.leeds.gov.uk/council/Pages/Site-Allocations-Development-Plan-Document-(LDF).aspx where you can also submit comments.

Email comments can be sent to sap@leeds.gov.uk.

You can copy us in at david.nagle@leeds.gov.uk and Karen.bruce@leeds.gov.uk.

Don’t lose your vote – did you know that the way you register to vote has changed?

Previously, one person in every household was responsible for registering everyone else who lives at that address.  Under individual electoral registration, each person is now required to register to vote individually, rather than by household. Even if you’ve always been registered to vote in the past you need to act now.

Under Individual Electoral Registration you need to provide ‘identifying information’, such as your date of birth and national insurance number, when applying to register and your application will need to be verified before you are added to the register. Anyone unable to supply this information can provide an alternative form of evidence of their identity.

Even if you are already registered to vote you will lose your vote if you don’t provide the government the extra information it is demanding by the end of December this year.

The government has changed the way that local people now register to vote. Everyone in the household will need to register to vote themselves and unfortunately can’t now rely on one person in the house doing it for all the family. This has made it harder for people to register and there is a real danger of some local people losing their right to vote without even realising. So it’s important to be proactive and make sure that you and your family have all registered individually. It is especially important for young people to register as it is now far harder for them to be allowed to vote.

Remember if you aren’t registered you can’t vote. If you don’t vote you can’t complain about things that your local council or the national government does. You have a right to have a say and have a vote. Don’t leave it until the last minute where you might forget to do it over Christmas. Register today to keep your vote.”

You can register to vote here: https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote

Your verdict on how community money should be spent

 

PlaygroundMe and my Labour councillor colleague David Nagle  asked local people how £180,000 should be invested in Rothwell, Woodlesford and Oulton for green space in the community, and have  had a fantastic response.

The money comes from the developers of the sites in Royds Lane, Rothwell and Fleet Lane, Woodlesford. It is known as ‘Section 106′ money and is a legal requirement that developers have to pay when they build large developments. It is to help the local community make improvements to the community and improve the local infrastructure to cope with the additional people the new developments bring.

However, it’s not that simple as there are different types of 106 money and each type can only be spent on certain kinds of improvements. So for example Royds School is getting £300,000 that is allocated to increasing the amount of secondary education available.

There is also about £180,000 of ‘green space’ money. This is meant to be spent on providing green space or outdoor recreational facilities that can be used by the community. It’s not just for the people who eventually live in the new houses, but to benefit everyone in the wider community who is impacted by the new developments.

The money will become available in phases with the agreement being that a third becomes available in the first six months of the building work starting.

In the past council officers have asked councillors for their opinions on how the green space money should be spent, but it has largely been a decision by council officers and councillors. Me and my ward colleague Councillor David Nagle don’t think this is good enough and we think everyone in the community should be given an opportunity to have a say on the various ideas and options that are available.

Thank you to everyone who has responded since we opened out the conversation to give all local people a chance to have their say, I have asked people on my blog, on our Rothwell News Facebook page and we’ve asked people at our stall at Rothwell carnival to let us know what they think and share their ideas. As well as asking people about existing ideas we also asked for new ideas.

The most popular choice amongst local people is new playgrounds in Rothwell Springhead Park and Woodlesford Park.  There were lots of comments in support of new playgrounds with modern equipment such as a zip wire which is already available in newer playgrounds such as in Carlton and Swillington.

The 8010 group campaigning for a new skatepark in Springhead Park also has lots of local people backing it on Facebook. It is already applying for various pots of funding, but to succeed in getting a new skatepark needs a significant contribution from the 106 green space money. The group, along with Groundwork and the council, are applying for funds from other sources as they need a minimum of £100,000.

The other idea that was put to people was Royds School’s request for £100,000 towards its plans for a £600,000 3G sports pitch for use by the school and some local sports clubs. This idea has some support, but not as much as the other ideas. It also had a number of people against it. Some said it was asking for too big a share of the money, while others felt that it wasn’t real community use as access would be via the school and formal, organised sports group therefore it wouldn’t be as publicly accessible as the other ideas.

Visitors to the Labour councillors stall at the carnival and people commenting on the Rothwell News Facebook page also made some new suggestions. The most popular of these ideas was outdoor gym equipment in Springhead Park and Woodlesford Park.IMG_8240

This is the verdict of local people

We would like to thank local people who have given us feedback. Both me and David Nagle think it is better to support the skate park, new playgrounds and outdoor gym as they will benefit more people in the community than spending £100,000 on a 3G pitch at the school where the only community use will be via a few formal sports clubs.

Lib Dem councillor Stewart Golton wants to spend more than half of the 106 money on the 3G pitch for Royds school. Cllr Golton claims there was a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ that the councillors would give £100,000 to Royds. That was never the case as we don’t believe in doing secret, back-room deals. That’s why we asked local people first.

The community has clearly called for the playgrounds, skatepark and outdoor gym equipment.

However, I’m aware Cllr Golton has put Royds School in a very difficult position by falsely leading the governors to believe they could have most of the community money. That’s not the governors’ fault so we want to offer £50,000, which is still a huge chunk of the money. This would still mean we can deliver most of the community schemes with the money, but not all the schemes like the outdoor gym equipment.

As your Labour councillors though, we’re determined to try to make all the schemes a reality. We very much want to try and get some adult gym equipment and will try to access funds from other sources to be able to do so, but even a reduced contribution to the 3G pitch at Royds makes this very difficult.

We want your views on how Rothwell and Woodlesford green space money is spent

Rothwell, Woodlesford and Oulton are to get £180,000 to be invested for green space in the community. The money comes from the developers of the sites in Royds Lane, Rothwell and Fleet Lane, Woodlesford. It is known as ‘Section 106’ money and is a legal requirement that developers have to pay when they build large developments. It is to help the local community make improvements to the community and improve the local infrastructure to cope with the additional people the new developments bring.

However, it’s not that simple as there are different types of 106 money and each type can only be spent on certain kinds of improvements.

For the developments at Royds Lane and Fleet Lane there is £180,000 of ‘green space’ money. This is meant to be spent on providing green space or outdoor recreational facilities that can be used by the community. It’s not just for the people who eventually live in the new houses, but to benefit everyone in the wider community who is impacted by the new developments.

The money will become available in phases with the agreement being that a third becomes available in the first six months of the building work starting.

In the past council officers have asked councillors for their opinions on how the green space money should be spent, but it has largely been a decision by council officers and councillors. Me and Cllr David Nagle don’t think this is good enough and think everyone in the community should be given an opportunity to have a say on the various ideas and options that are available.

We want you to tell us what you think.

We’ll have a stall at Rothwell carnival in Springhead Park tomorrow where you can let us know what you think and share your ideas. Or you can leave comments below or on the Rothwell News Facebook page.

New skatepark in Springhead Park

New Rothwell skate park photoOne of the projects we would like to help is the 8010 group who want to see a new skatepark in Springhead Park that can be used by people from Rothwell, Woodlesford, Oulton and Carlton. I’m on the steering group and am keen to help the skatepark be built. The 8010 group is already applying for various pots of funding, but to succeed in getting a new skatepark needs a significant contribution from the 106 green space money.

We want to make a £33,000 contribution towards the new skatepark.

New playgrounds in Springhead Park, Rothwell and Woodlesford Park

New playground in Rothwell and Woodlesford photoWhilst out knocking on doors lots of residents have told us that they would like to see new play equipment in both Rothwell Springhead Park and also Woodlesford Park. The playgrounds have become dated and need an overhaul.  We think it would be great if we could invest a significant amount of the money in both of these parks, which are both nearby to each of the developments and would benefit local families enormously. The type of equipment we’d like to see is similar to the new playground in Carlton (which was also paid for by 106 green space money from a development in Carlton). It has an adventure climbing frame, a basket swing that’s great fun for everyone (but can also be used by people in wheelchairs) and my favourite – a zip wire.

The Springhead Park playground needs £88,000 and the Woodlesford Park playground needs £50,000.

New 3G sports pitch at Royds School

New 3G pitch at Royds School photoRoyds school governors want to spend £100,000 of the £180,000 community green space money on contributing to a new 3G artificial sports pitch at Royds School. This would mean that more than half the money for the community goes to the school. We really want to support Royds School and help the new headteacher Brian Kelly in his efforts to improve the school. That’s why me and David Nagle met Brian recently  to hear his plans and vision and we attended a year 11 assembly at the school. One of our big community campaigns recently has been helping to improve road safety at the school. We’ve used our councillors’ MICE money to buy luminous clip-ons for pupils to wear to help keep them safe whilst walking to and from school. We’ve also successfully campaigned to get two new crossings in time for the new school year in September on the busy Leeds/Wakefield Road pupils have to cross to get to Royds from Oulton and Woodlesford.

Royds School is already going to benefit from the Section 106 money as it will get the part that is allocated for secondary school education, which amounts to over £300,000. I’ve already asked council officers if some of this could be used for the 3G pitch, but have been told it should be spent on the school buildings.

The 3G pitch would not just be for the use of students at the school, but the school tell us it will also be used by sports clubs from Rothwell Town FC, Castleford White Rose Ladies and Oulton Raiders ARLFC.

Royds School has identified funding from Sports England and the FA and the school, but says it needs to take £100,000 (more than half) of the 106 money to match this money.

What do you think?

Both me and David Nagle think it is better to support the skatepark and new playgrounds as they will benefit more people in the community than a sports pitch at the school where the only community use will be be via some formal sports clubs. Cllr Stewart Golton wants to support the school and spend more than half of the 106 money on the 3G pitch.

So before we finally decided we want to hear what you would like to see the funds spent on and whether you support any of these ideas or have other ideas.

My opinion is that funds go further if more projects can be supported and we need to make sure they are ones that benefit as many local people as possible.