After 5 months, the petition and recommendations from Shipley Area Committee finally go to the Executive on 1st December. Sadly we only had a few days to arrange a response to the council's 26 page report which you can read here:
Here is our response. We hope the Executive listen, learn and act on what we have said, evidenced and requested from a very sad part of our recent history....
Saltaire Trees: Information presented to the
Executive, 1 December 2015
1. Our reasons for petitioning
the Council were to ask for more street trees to be planted on Victoria Road,
to replace those felled earlier this year, and to help the Council recognise
that the consultation process in relation to the Victoria Road scheme was not
adequate. Our arguments are set out in our presentation to the Shipley Area
Committee, the text of which is presented in Appendix A. Further questions are
set out Appendix B.
2.
Our
views are backed up by the results of research conducted over many months via a
number of different mediums; our evidence is that residents consistently state
they want more trees and did not feel properly consulted. Summary reports from
our research are presented in Appendices C and D.
3. We believe that the Officers’
Report presented to the Executive demonstrates that there is a lack of
willingness on behalf of officers to explore options for replanting, with a
lack of creativity being shown in overcoming perceived obstacles. For example,
trees in planters have been ruled out on the grounds that they will obstruct
pavements and have associated maintenance costs. This is despite planters being
used successfully in several towns and cities across the globe in and around
historic sites like Wandsworth Castle and the British Museum as well as tourist
attractions and other well-known and well visited towns and cities. Planters
need not be wider than other street furniture, such as bins, and could even be
funded via crowd-sourcing and other means. Trees can even be donated by the
Woodland Trust. We implore the Council to work with us respect the wishes of
residents and bring more street trees back to Victoria Road. Trees are known to
enhance wellbeing, slow traffic down and of course absorb dangerous air
pollution.
4. Another reason frequently
cited for not having trees on Victoria Road is to maintain the road “as Titus
intended”. However, although there were fewer trees in the original design for
the road, there were some, opposite the Mill entrance. The ‘as intended’ philosophy
is applied selectively in the scheme: the street lamps are not ‘as Titus
intended’, neither are pavements (the wrong colour; wrongly sized, uniform
flags), the lighting of the lions, nor the planned setts in Victoria Square.
Further, it is not possible to say what Titus would have intended for Saltaire
today. Today Saltaire is, first and foremost, a residential village, facing
modern challenges such as air pollution from road traffic. Titus relocated from
Bradford because of air pollution; it is certainly not inconceivable that he
would have responded to today’s environmental challenges by planting
carbon-absorbing trees.
5. The benefits of having street
trees in polluted cities are well know, with many other cities across the UK,
including London, clamouring to plant as many street trees as possible, because
the health benefits of the trees are recognised. It is our contention that
officers are prioritising design decisions and ‘symmetry’ over the health and
wellbeing of residents, attending only to their own preferred architectural
authenticity of the village, and not its human and other cultural assets. As
stated by the Chair of Saltaire Village Society, “Saltaire is not a museum ...
the interplay between a vibrant community and the Heritage Site is very
important. There aren't many places where people live in such a well preserved
industrial environment. So any decisions about Saltaire have to bear both its
history and its present needs in mind.”
6. We believe that the views of
residents could be better heard if they had more representatives on the
Steering Group. On this group there is only one seat that exists to represent
residents (whilst there are other residents on the group, they are not there to
represent residents, but business/other interests). We ask that membership of
the group be opened up to more residents; individual businesses have seats, so
individual residents could contribute too.
7. The consultation in relation
to the Victoria Road is not a good example of genuine engagement with
residents: individuals could vote by more than one medium, and people were
asked to vote on an option which had not been, but could have been, fully
scoped. Why was this option not fully designed prior to consultation? People
feel misled by the inclusion of what an area committee member described as an
‘Aunty Sally’ (decoy) option. The Council’s own consultation document (which
wasn’t available online during the consultation window and has since been removed
from the website) shows that the approximate location of services were known
and would have ruled out replanting in these locations.
8. Furthermore in the light of
this meeting, we feel very disappointed with Bradford Council for the following
reasons:
a.
Providing
the lead petitioners with such short notice on the hearing of the petition
after a five month delay in this coming to the Executive. We do hope that given
the pressure on our time and limited resources, the Executive give this
response due consideration. As Griff Rhys Jones has expressed in his work for
Civic Voice: “Local communities want and
need to have their voices heard. Local people can help in making the places
where we all live more attractive, enjoyable and distinctive. Because they care.”
b.
Providing
a council report which includes inaccuracies (these are identified and
discussed below) and fails to accept even a modicum of learning from what has
happened. Instead it polarises the debate and shows once again the clear
dominance of officer opinions over councillors and residents.
c.
Refusing
to acknowledge that improvements could have been made to the process which
should make all Bradford residents concerned that history can be repeated if
lessons fail to be learned here.
9. We urge the Executive to not
accept the recommendations of the Officers’ Report, which represents yet
another that calls for resident views to be disregarded. We believe the actions
in 2015 require an inquiry into the matter and remedial actions with residents
to see how collectively residents and council officers (as well as Steering
Groups) can better involve, engage and collaborate on planning decisions. We
are seeking a progressive step towards remediation and not another entrenched
and protective council position that shows genuine animosity towards residents
who live, work and invest in this very significant part of Bradford.
10. We would be very happy to
work with the Council to bring about the necessary improvements, both in
respect of tree planting and consultation.
Response to main body of Officers’ Report on
the recommendations of the Shipley Area Committee
11. There is an inaccuracy in
1.2(i): Option 2 was to “Remove the trees on Victoria Road, replacing with
smaller species where possible. Repair pavements within resources available”. See
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140723011013/http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/6423558D-8C29-4AA0-A95B-45227A7B37FE/0/VICTORIAROADCONSULTATIONDOCUMENT.pdf
(also provided as an attachment), which has been removed from the current
version of the BMDC website, and was not available online during the period
that consultation was open.
12. 2.2.2 highlights that there
are issues with accountability and reporting lines, in that the Chair of the
Project Board (with the casting vote) is appointed by the Chair of the Steering
Group to which it reports; that Chair being Cllr Slater. As Chair of the
Steering Group, Cllr Slater reports to herself as Heritage Champion and the
planning portfolio holder, from which she has policy command over the Chair of
the Project Board. So, two individuals, not elected by the people of Saltaire,
have a disproportionate level of influence and we feel that this lays processes
open to lack of due diligence and scrutiny of decisions.
13. 2.2.3 implies that the
consultation that took place as part of the VRPRI Scheme was considered by the
RTPI – this is simply not true. That award was for the WHS Management Plan
alone.
14. Still in relation to 2.2.3,
we reiterate that, whether intentional or otherwise, the consultation was
misleading, and this is demonstrated by the survey results (e.g. people would
not have voted for Option 2 had they been aware of its reality). Why not
mention trees in initial letter, when this was known to be a controversial and
divisive issue? Why were trial pits not dug before consultation, so that Option
2 was defined? Statutory undertakers’ plans (as ref’d in 2.2.4) would have
shown where services were. Inaccuracies in the report meant Officers mislead Shipley
Area Committee about the wording of Option 2 and are doing it again here.
15. Again on 2.2.3, people feel
misled by what has been said by the World Heritage Officer, including
statements that “all the trees would have to go anyway”, and that new trees
would be “dotted around”. At the World Heritage forum in February residents
were advised that they would be kept up-to-date with a schedule of works, but
the information has not been available, with residents only notified of works
days before they are due to commence. At the World Heritage forum in October,
the World Heritage Officer claimed that four additional trees had been planted
in front of the Alms Houses, saying this meant that 12 out of 32 trees had been
replaced, but did not mention that the four new trees were to replace four more
that had been felled. Deliberate or not, these actions have been misleading.
16. 2.2.4ii: please publish the correspondence
from Historic England and ICOMOS.
17. 2.2.4iii: planters need be no
more of an obstruction than waste bins. They are used in many towns and cities
across the world. If we get free trees from the Woodland Trust and crowdfunding
for maintenance, would you reconsider?
18. 2.2.4v: it is misleading to
say ‘additional’ trees have been introduced when four have been replaced with four
– there is no net gain.
19. 2.2.4vii: please pursue this
option anyway, to show willing.
20. 2.2.5i: The old trees had “go
anyway”; new trees would be “dotted around”, replanted “where possible”
(implying that it would be possible) versus “where services allow”; no mention
of trees in letter; Heritage Forum announcement that the planting of four fruit
trees represented a net gain – these are all misleading.
21. 2.2.5ii: how could there be a
gap when services are continuous down the road – this claim is not credible.
What evidence to is there to support this? Why were no trial holes dug or better
research done before consultation?
22. 4: We’re not asking that the
scheme stop (so there is no loss); we’re asking to just to consider extras!
23. 5: We’re not asking you to
cancel contracts, though we remain curious as to when they were signed as much
of the information so far seems to be a forgone conclusion.
24. 8.1: Access on the pavements
is easier but not widened (one of our lead petitioners is a wheelchair user and
cannot get to anywhere that he could not before)
25. 8.3 does not account for loss
of carbon absorbing trees
26. 8.4 does not address
implications of increased speeding traffic.
Comments of Appendix 1 of Officers’ Report
27. 2.1.1 neglects to mention
that Victoria Road is also comprised of houses in which residents live.
Saltaire is, first and foremost, a residential village.
28. 2.3.1 talks of historical
accuracy, but Saltaire didn't originally have public houses, cars on the road,
or washing lines in peoples' yards. It is not a museum, it's a place where
people live and work!
29. 2.3.2 cites accessibility but
this scheme does not address the main accessibility problem along Victoria Road
which is the almost impassible section at the entrance to the Mill and the
United Reformed Church, never mind the slope down to the canal path.
30. 2.3.2 also talks of making
the road more attractive to visitors but the road was already thriving.
Visitors to the Arts Trail in May didn’t feel this improved the road. At the
WHF the Portfolio Holder mentioned a Trip Advisor review which said that
Saltaire had the worst pavements of anywhere the reviewer had been to. We
cannot locate this review, but can find one that says something similar, but in
relation to dog foul rather than the state of the pavements.
31. 2.3.3 talks of improved
safety but this does not appear to be so for road/pedestrian safety – traffic
goes up and down the road faster than ever, before slowing down for the
junction.
32. 2.3.3 also talks of reduced
carbon emissions but any benefit is lost by the removal of carbon-absorbing
trees.
33. 2.5.2 misrepresents the
options that were presented to residents – Option 2 said “where possible”,
which is much more optimistic that “where underground service allow”.
34. 2.6.1 mentions the letter
that was sent to residents. This did not detail any potential changes to trees.
The Council has known for a good time (since at least 2008) that this has been
a contentious issue, so how can it be acceptable to omit this information? Why
would it be omitted?
35. 2.6.1 also refers to the
consultation and door knocking (once on each door). The consultation was a vote
(Option 1 received the most votes – 2.7.1) which included double counting of
views and the door knocking comments were misleading (all had to go, dotted
around).There was no consistent presentation of the ‘facts’ by officers and no
auditing of what was said.
36. 2.7.1 shows that a majority
were in favour of having trees. No attempt was made to differentiate sections
of the road that had genuinely different expectations (of course light was an
issue for those in the Alms Houses).
37. 2.7.2 is very selective: we
know that several people made comments imploring that as many trees as possible
be retained, and the turnout at the WHF is Feb is testament to how many were
dismayed by the decisions in spite of the obvious insensitivity of this by the
councillors and officers who presented that evening. We do have audio
recordings of that forum and the line ‘well it’s too late the trees have gone
now anyway’ must be one of the most insensitive exclamations that evening by
Councillor Slater.
38. 2.8.1 talks of a ‘coherently
designed scheme’, but this doesn't mean you need perfect symmetry! This is
given too much importance (it's a place to live, not a museum!) and design
symmetry was put ahead of environmental health and wellbeing.
39. 2.8.2 shows that the Council
had knowledge of underground cables and knew that Option 2, as described by WHO
and illustrated for consultation was never deliverable. As stated by SAC, it
was an ‘Aunty Sally’ option.
40. 2.9 highlights another poor
design choice subject to no consultation, and that does not reflect any
original design/not ‘as Titus intended’.
41. 3.2.1 talks about a lack of
soil yet mature trees had thrived in these locations for several decades.
42. 3.3.1b mentions clearance for
wheelchairs, yet existing street furniture does not comply with this
requirement. And what about all of the cars that park on the pavement elsewhere
in the village?
43. 3.3.4 is not consistent with
what Cllr Slater told the audience at the World Heritage Forum – that the
allocated money would be withdrawn if there was a delay in finalising the
plans.
44. 3.3.5 talks of good practice,
but how is double counting of views good practice? Falls short of the required
standard for consultation. It meets a minimum box ticking requirement but we
believe Bradford and a world heritage site deserves better.
45. 3.4.7 says this wasn’t just
about trees; true, but this was the only thing we were asked to vote on
(showing that it was known to be controversial), and it is simply not credible
to suggest that the council did not know that this would have elicited a
response from residents. Especially given the history of the topic.
46. 3.4.7 also says it would have
been undesirable to include this detail in the letters to residents - undesirable
to inform people properly?
47. 3.4.8 states: “It would not
be usual practice to consult the whole Bradford District on a matter which
concerned a single street in one neighbourhood area”, yet in 2.1.1 Victoria
Road is the jewel in the crown and of great importance! It cannot also be
"a single street in one neighbourhood area". And if the latter, why
not listen to residents' views better?
48. 3.4.8 also talks of excellent
press coverage yet local people didn't know (see our survey results and
consider the turnout at the heritage forum).
49. 3.4.9 claims that information
was consistent and labelled appropriately, but it was misleading - "all
the trees will need to be removed anyway" and new trees would be
"dotted around" - what we were told by WHO, and not labelled appropriately
according to our survey which said the information provided was not adequate.
50. 3.4.11 talks of ‘wider
issues’. What wider issues? Why could healthy trees not damaging the pavement
not have been retained?
51. 3.4.12 mentions a letter sent
to the scrutiny committee. This was given greater weight that 400 signatories
to a petition.
52. 3.4.13 says the images used
in consultation were described as ‘photomontages’. And everyone understands
what this means? The images suggested that this was the intention of the
council and gave hope that it would be possible when clearly neither of these
were the case. Why not find out beforehand whether this was possible?
53. 3.4.18 states that ‘The views
of the community have not been disregarded on this Scheme’, yet SVS petition
disregarded because of letter from FORMER chair.
54. 3.5.6: A ward councillor
being on the group is inadequate. Chair of this group should be locally
accountable and there should not be a situation where the Chair is making
recommendations to another group that they chair, thus endorsing their own
actions.
55. 4.1 says that ‘The public
consultation vote was a clear majority in favour of the removal of the mature
trees’. Not when we asked people how they would have voted had they known the
reality of Option 2, and not how people have felt since.
56. 5.1 makes out that replanting
trees following the completion of this scheme will jeopardise its completion –
this is plainly not the case!
Appendix A: Petition presentation to Shipley
Area Committee, June 2015
[Jackie]
In a
heritage site, we like to think we can learn from the past. Only by learning
from the past can we progress and make better future decisions. The council
believes that it has undertaken an effective consultation; the evidence we have
suggests this is far from the truth. Thanks to a small but growing number of
volunteers we have managed to engage
with residents through petitions, consultations, votes and sueys. The results
indicate that mistakes have been made and the council would do well to learn
from this.
Out of
491 residents only 17% are happy with the current Victoria Road scheme;
75% believe the consultation should have included more people. In a door-knocking and online survey of 258 people, 151 people say that had they known only 8 trees would be replanted, they would have selected to keep the trees and repair the paving. In the same survey 73% of respondents describe the information on the public realm plans as poor or very poor – most said very poor.
75% believe the consultation should have included more people. In a door-knocking and online survey of 258 people, 151 people say that had they known only 8 trees would be replanted, they would have selected to keep the trees and repair the paving. In the same survey 73% of respondents describe the information on the public realm plans as poor or very poor – most said very poor.
None of
this should be news to the council. As soon as the decision was made to fell 32
trees two petitions took place, one not on a council site, the other on the
council site and each gathered over 300 signatures to ask for review. This is
why we are here. Why we are still standing up for trees that are felled. It
simply is not good enough to note this and move on. This is a call to action and
it is not too late to remedy.
[Pete]
My wife
and I moved to Saltaire seven years ago, and bought our first house here,
making us custodians of a small part of the WHS. We chose Victoria Road because
of the beautiful avenue of trees that we’d enjoyed on our daily travel to and
from the railway station. We saw it as a great place to start our family and
enjoy a great quality of life partly because of the benefits brought by the street
trees. According to the Woodland Trust, these benefits are: increased property
value, reduced risk of flooding, reduced crime rates, better health and
increased well-being, better air quality, the provision of shade, and the
provision of homes for wildlife. It has been a great pleasure for my wife and I
to observe our young daughter looking at the birds nested in the trees that had
been opposite her bedroom window.
So much
of the enjoyment we experienced in our home has been taken away. This is
upsetting but also makes us angry; angry that the consultation was misleading
(for example the WHO in the interview with my wife said that “all the trees
would have to go eventually anyway” and, in relation to Option 2, that new
trees would be “dotted around” – clearly this was never the intention as this
would not fit with the homogenous design. The council now admits that it had
knowledge of underground utilities along the road and that Option 2 was never
deliverable.
We don’t
think that all of the trees could or should have been saved. One was clearly
hazardous, some were causing extensive damage to the pavements and others were
providing an unacceptably beneficial level of shade – particularly for those in
the Alms Houses. However, several of the trees, approximately half including
those in front of the allotments, were not affected by any of these issues and
could have been retained were it not for the desires of the designers who
ignored the residents.
We now
live with more noise with no trees to muffle the sounds of the road, traffic
and passers-by. We are literally losing sleep about the trees. There will be an
impact on air quality. Replanting trees elsewhere doesn’t help – emissions
don’t travel! The speed of the traffic has increased notably because the road
appears to be wider and there have been more accidents in the time since the
trees came down than in the same period before.
Is it
just us residents who are upset? We asked visitors. We had ballot boxes in
three locations for the Saltaire Arts Trail weekend and with over 200
responses, 95 per cent of voters said they would like to see more street trees
replanted on Victoria Road.
[Jackie]
So what
is the alternative – what do we need to learn?
We ask
for the following:
·
Council commits to working with Saltaire Trees
and using best endeavours to reinstate trees and greenery on Victoria Road –
this could for example include moveable planters which are well used in other
towns and cities. Moveable planters would shield the visibility of parked cars and
would ensure the look, feel and ambience of the village could return – it also
might improve air quality and slow the traffic down.
·
We recommend The Chair of the Steering Group
role is taken by a Shipley Ward Councillor so they have a direct relationship
with and are directly accountable to the people of Saltaire; we do not believe the
current Chair would have taken the decision so lightly in their own ward.
·
We ask Council officers to commit to explore
best ways in collaboration with the Saltaire Trees group on how residents,
custodians within the village and immediate vicinity can be included and better
represented in all future consultations beyond the standard minimum
requirements.
·
We recommend the council never again leaves out
crucial points of a plan on an issue of known controversy such as significant
tree felling in correspondence to residents about schemes.
·
In future consultations, the council must
ensure that if multiple methods to collect feedback, there should be rigorous
methods and due diligence to ensure individuals should only have one vote. This
is almost certainly not the case in the scheme consultation where for example 74
responses are recorded for tree-felling and this included 52 survey responses,
14 post-it notes and 8 emails; no wonder 237 residents out of 379 responses
believed their views had not been considered.
[Pete]
·
We recommend to increase engagement in future
consultations, the council adopts the preferred methods of communication
identified by 150 Saltaire residents which are online and electronic
newsletters, direct printed and mailed information and social media.
·
Using the electoral roll to increase engagement
and pick-up the council should personally address mailings to residents about
consultations; It is well accepted that mailings starting dear resident only
result in a 3-5% pick-up rate. Personal mailings can make a great deal of
difference.
·
We recommend that all planning applications
include signage at all points of access around sites so that every effort is
made to raise awareness and that there is clear space in processes for scrutiny
and independent review of consultation results to ensure due diligence and
transparency on decisions, responses and processes.
·
The council accepts petitions from websites
other than its own.
[Jackie]
To
conclude:
The
Council officers seem to be a small minority of people who think the consultation
was acceptable. Councillors you have been elected to be accountable and to act
on behalf of your electorate. The messages, the responses, the evidence is
clear. Now is not a time to note and reject another petition, it is a time to
accept a petition and act. Replant More Trees on Victoria Road and Learn from
this very recent and upsetting past in Saltaire.
Appendix B: Saltaire Trees – Questions
See file
‘SaltaireTreesQuestions.pdf’.
Appendix C: Saltaire Trees Survey Results
February 2015
See file
‘SaltaireTreesSurveyResults201502.pdf’.
Appendix D: Saltaire Trees Survey Results March
2015
See file
‘SaltaireTreesQuestions.pdf’.
