Labour appear to have got their figures wrong

Once again this newspaper was briefed before non-Labour councillors had even seen the budget, let alone discussed it (don’t you just love Labour’s idea of democracy!). This year’s council ‘priorities’ appear to be twofold; a reduction in the precept (to be welcomed) and the apparent increasing of reserves in preparation for future commitments.

All good you might say, but actually the budget is going up this year by 4.5 per cent to £345,000 and reserves look to be going down by £74,000, as Coun Carl Morris (Labour’s financial guru and brains behind these budgets) appears to have got his figures wrong.

The good news is they have given back the £28,000 grant from last year (again welcomed) and they expect to raise £20,000 from the toilets (last year they said £16,000 but they are now predicting £2,000). They also hope to raise a further £4,000 from the Council selling Tour de France merchandise. I’m not sure that the council should compete with our gift and speciality shops.

Other highlights include once again our kids missing out – £15,000 was ‘bequeathed’ to the administration when the Lib Dems left office – and again nowt (or next to nowt) will be spent on our kids.

Two major events will take place this year, but because so much money is now tied up in the offices and the toilets the First World War commemorations will get only £3,000, whilst the Tour de France will get the £5,000 Voice Your Choice (cut from £10,000 last year) money for a legacy. Not much when you’re spending nearly £350,000. So far as reserves go, last year we had £108,000 in reserves, this year we might have £34,000 – it’s hard to tell because unfortunately by getting his figures wrong Coun Morris ended up blaming the software and council staff. What I do know is that you can’t go over budget by 15 per cent and 22 per cent respectively on the rented offices and toilets whilst reducing the precept and still expect to have a larger reserve.

Finally, there is the future. Next year there will be an 80 per cent increase in rent for the Town Council offices, admin costs will continue to rise (they hid a further £37,500 toilet staffing in Asset Management rather than in Administration costs this year) and they won’t have the £28,000 grant windfall next year; nor do I think they are likely to hit income targets, thereby impacting on the budget. So expect either another whopping precept rise next year or no reserves! Either way, you can be sure I’ll let you know.

Councillor Sandy Lay, Leeds City for Otley & Yeadon and Otley Town Councillor for Danefield (Lib Dem)

Facing most dangerous attack since the Romans

With the Bradford Local Plan proposing 800 new homes, Ilkley and Ben Rhydding is facing possibly the most dangerous attack on its residents since the Romans invaded the area in the first century.

The 2011 Localism Act should have been our defence, as it was put forward as “a series off measures with the potential to achieve a substantial and lasting shift in power away from central government and towards local people...new rights and powers for communities and individuals; reform to make the planning system more democratic and more effective and reform to ensure that decisions are taken locally.”

From these laudable aims, you would have thought that the Localism Act would have given the council tax payers of Ilkley and Ben Rhydding the right to decide what happens in their own area.

But it appears as effective as the Maginot Line, as once again faceless bureaucrats will decide what happens in our ‘green and pleasant land’ unless all of us – not just the 300 residents that attended last Wednesday’s public meeting, but every single one of 12,000 residents over 18 – expresses a view, whether for or against the building of 800 houses, then local democracy can work.

So if you believe that:

• The local schools can take in another 1,500 children into the area;
• The A65 can take another 800 cars each morning and evening;
• The Wharfedale line can take another 500 passengers each way per day
• That the drainage systems can cope with the concreting of our fields;
• That there are no brownfield sites available in the Bradford area to build these houses;
• That the road through the town centre can take more traffic;
• That there is sufficient car parking in Ilkley;
• That our excellent medical centre will be able to cope with 3,000 more patients; and
• That it won’t harm the beauty and thus the number of visitors to our town.

Then write and tell the Inspector to build these 800 homes BUT if, like me, you believe that this is a ‘suicide charter’ for Ilkley and Ben Rhydding lacking any detailed thought for the impact on the local infrastructure then please write to the Inspector.

The most important thing is that as many people as possible write in, then it is the real opinion of Ilkley, and Ben Rhydding’s residents, not just a few activists.

The more people who contribute then the view of the town has more chance to prevail.

This would then be local democracy in action, and only an out-of-touch and undemocratic authority would counter 12,000 people opposing this insane plan.

What a way to celebrate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta next year – the sovereignty of local people.

Paul Barrett, Wheatley Lane, Ilkley

When were Metro going to tell us about bus cuts?

‘Wee, sleekit, cow’rin, tim’rous beastie, O, what a panic’s in thy breastie!’ Quite appropriate that the last bus to Bradford (no 963) was on Saturday, January 25 (Burns Night). I can’t help wondering when Metro are going to get round to telling us, the passengers. Were they afraid of causing a riot – or did they just not bother? Presumably they don’t put much store on client communication. To rub salt in the wound, I turned up for my usual alternative 11.05 bus to Shipley from Otley (653) this morning, only to discover, after waiting in the wet and cold, that that too had been cut, and there are now only three of those buses a day, at 6.20am, 4.10pm and 6.15pm.

There was no advance warning on the buses or at bus stops, and no new timetables available in any of the libraries, visitor centres or rail stations that I went to. In fact they all had piles of the out-dated timetables for both bus routes that had been delivered in the past month. Last week I went to the meeting in Ilkley on Bradford’s Local Plan and one of the most contentious issues was that of pressure of increased traffic as a result of the proposed new housing.

Surely this is a time, especially with all the dire warnings of global warming, when more emphasis should be put on investing in and improving reliable and affordable public transport, not cutting it. Talking about cuts, rumour has it that next for the chop is funding for our much-cherished bus pass. Anyone else ready for the barricades?

Lynne Faulkes, Wharfe Court, Burley in Wharfedale

Already congested roads will not be able to cope

An article and a letter in your newspaper last week highlighted some of the problems that will result from the huge amount of house building planned for the Wharfedale area.

Both the letter and the article concentrated on the impact this massive amount of building will have on infrastructure and services in Otley and Ilkley, although the infrastructure problem in particular will affect the whole of Wharfedale.

This is because the people who buy these homes will be probably be working outside the Wharfedale area and the already congested roads to the north of Leeds and Bradford will simply not be able to cope with the enormous increase in commuter traffic which will result.

Leeds City Council and Bradford MDC are required to provide spaces for housing under the Government’s Local Strategy Framework, but they do not seem to have considered the combined effect of their housing plans. Surely it is time to talk and devise an integrated strategy to cope with the problem.

Alan and Susan Carr, Moor Drive, Otley

True culprit is Government cut in bus services support Thank you once again for your coverage of our campaign to save the bus service between Bradford and Ilkley but there is another twist to the dilution of our bus passes.

On one of the last 963 journeys last week I heard two Metro employees talking about the likely charging for concessionary pass holders next year – apparently this is to be at the maximum half-fare price.

Now Metro may not have handled this saga very well in choosing to axe this service because of a cut in their subsidy from the airport, but your readers should be in no doubt about the true, if as always disguised, culprit – the government’s 25 per cent cut in support of bus services.

So once again another of Cameron’s cons is exposed – the bus pass may indeed continue but now as well as having no bus to use it on we will have to pay for any journey we are lucky enough to be able to take!

Sandy MacPherson, Wheatley Lane, Ben Rhydding