Email from Val Slater with our response

This is the email from Cllr Val Slater with our responses. (you can see the original email here)

On 20 Feb 2015, at 14:50, Cllr Val Slater <val.slater@bradford.gov.uk> wrote:

> As you have come late to this debate I would like to correct a number of things that you are stating as facts.

Our response: We did not all come late, many of those in our networks attended the consultations which they have described as ‘woolly’ and limited to only 3 options. Many also then signed petitions which the council did not follow. So we are not late. You just did not listen as much as you could have done as an elected councillor and leader of this portfolio.

We are upset that you chose to disregard views that were expressed, narrowed options when the arboricultural report said options were “endless” and seem to have rushed a decision when it was clear wider consultation would have been of benefit to the village. The rush seems to be based on a recommendation that the money for the project might be jeopardised. We continue to ask about the validity of this claim.

The consultation was clearly biased towards accepting the new project as can be clearly seen in the artist drawings (Victoria Road with few cars, and even a drawing of Victoria Hall with two small trees by the lions, the emphasis on downhill views towards Shipley Glen rather than towards Bingley Road etc.). This could be one example of why many describe the process as misleading.

> Firstly it was not only the Council involved in the decision re the removal of the trees but this was an integral part of the Heritage site management plan that was agreed and endorsed by the World Heritage Site Steering group. This steering group involves representatives from residents and business in the area and includes The village society, the Unitarian church, Saltaire Stories, the college, the NHS( from New Mill), In communities, New Mason properties , local small traders, Baildon parish council, English Heritage and ICOMOS(who speak on behalf of UNESCO)as well as Council representatives. Each of the members especially the college and the larger business were tasked with communicating with their own staff and learners and feeding the response back into the process in addition to the consultation process the Council lwas carrying out .

Our response: So are you suggesting we should complain to others? Is it others who failed to maintain the village, the paving and the trees which would result in the need for such a radical new management plan? Many businesses and residents feel they were not consulted. How were comments from these businesses evaluated? Do you have documents to evidence engagement at all? That would be helpful. We asked for numbers and engagement at events but as far as we have been told there are no formal counts. If this is not your issue, who should we write to for our complaint? As you say it isn’t entirely you – so who should we appeal to next? UNESCO? ICOMOS? Although we did think that it was the council who nominated members of the Steering Group?

> You state that the council ignored the petition - it was not ignored but was looked at in depth for over an hour by the Regeneration overview and scrutiny committee( mixed political group of cllrs). The committee listened to the petitioners and to officers, questioned them and then came to a DEMOCRATIC decision that the removal of the trees go ahead with replacements where possible.   The committee accepted the FACTs that

Our response: It was not one petition, it was two – one from change.org (which gained 300 signatures in 3 days) and the other on the council epetition system which gained a further 309 signatures. The mixed group of councillors were listening to council officers who said that if they did agree to review and extend consultation that future funding could be jeopardised. In the scrutiny committee the council used an ex-Chair’s letter about a consultation in 2008 which undermined the requests by the Village Society with their petition that was supported by 309 people in 2014. The desire to review and open up discussions regarding more trees was not agreed according to the minutes of that meeting that state it would prevent “a highly designed and symmetrical landscape/townscape” and of course might jeopardise the funds. You mention democratic systems but according to the minutes, there does not appear to have been a vote? Scrutiny committee cannot overrule an executive decision in any case.

> 1. a number of the trees were diseased and not in a good condition and that few of the remainder had a long shelf life. This was established by an independent tree expert.

Our response: The report states that 8 of them had some form of disease, and the advice was mainly to leave them and treat the canker. Though the tree expert did comment on branch management issues due to ‘historic management’ of the trees.

Was one tree expert sufficient for such a dramatic change and are the views of that tree expert being correctly represented? The tree report clearly states that the best measure would be to retain more than half the trees and replace the rest. 

 
> 2. because of the extensive wires, pipes etc underground - established by the test holes that were done - that the trees could not be replaced everywhere.  It is not a case of just digging a hole and planting a tree but in order to ensure that we don't get the same problem repeated with roots it involves installing a large underground container or pit that contains the roots but allows the tree to grow and that this could not be done everywhere as it would seriously disrupt services especially to key business such as PACE as well as householders

Our response:  Did anyone contact the utility firms to discuss issues and potential remedies? Test holes were dug after the executive decided on option 2 on the insistence of the Green councillors. It seems many thought more would be replanted when they chose option 2 – as with the artist’s drawing with two trees outside Victoria Hall. We have heard you and other councillors say it is not feasible, yet the arboricultural reported many options with the existing trees.  We question whether the tree pits are the only reason, when nib planting was offered too. We think factors other than feasibility are at play and according to the report to the meeting of the scrutiny committee, one of these factors is ‘symmetry of design’. Village residents seem to like trees so maybe the design is worth revisiting.

> 3.the trees had destroyed the pavements and these could not be repaired without removing the trees. You can clearly see the extent of the damage by looking at the tarmac areas which look like humps on the pavement. The temporary tarmac will lbe removed and the distorted ground levelled before new paving is put down. This could not be done with the trees in place.

Our response: Poor maintenance had destroyed the paving more than trees. The council was responsible for maintaining the paving. There was an option to repair paving – the arboricultural report repeatedly says that all of the trees should be retained or replanted. The paving is in a bad state all over the place with or without trees, so this is an issue of poor management.

> 4. People living on Victoria rd were having to keep their lights on all day as light was blocked by trees and this was not acceptable.  The people who now have  natural light in their houses are really grateful and happy about the action taken.  Would you have condemned them to live in unacceptable conditions.

Our response: Not all trees were blocking light to those houses. The trees had been poorly maintained for years and if they had been pruned and well-treated then the situation may never have arisen. However what about further down the village? Now it suddenly looks like a design of paving and building unlike the artist impressions proposed in the consultation that feature street trees.  Two residents and one business so far have informed us that the consultation they were offered in the door knocking was that the trees would need to be removed because they were diseased, that they were ‘informed’ rather than asked and that they were not told that the removal would be the entire length of Victoria Road.

> 5. People with restricted mobility , in wheelchairs and people with prams etc found it very difficult to walk safely and easily around saltaire. The council and the Steering group have responsibilities under the Equalities act. Are you saying that people haven't the right to be able to freely access the area without problems

Our response: Many of us are parents and we have walked those routes with prams and pushchairs. We have met people with mobility problems that were appalled at the decision. There are cobbled streets, narrow roads all over Saltaire which are not too accessible either. How many wheelchair users and pushchair users did you consult? Some suggest the council was worried about being sued which once again was down to poorly maintained trees and paving. Would street trees down Victoria Road impede access? Good paving and trees was a solution.

> 6. Visitors to Saltaire (one of our Key tourist areas ) found the pavements unacceptable - as evidenced on trip advisor where Saltaire was found to be the 4th worst place to visit. Not a good message.

 Our response: We cannot find your TripAdvisor assertion – the comments are mostly all good as far as we can see – so please do email us the link. Once again though, the pavements would have been the responsibility of the council to maintain, and are poor in more areas than Saltaire, with or without trees.

> You state that we have ignored the views of the Village Society but this is not so. As far as I am aware there is no overall consensus from the members of the village society and no resolution objecting to the tree removal passed. This was evidenced at the scrutiny by a letter from an other member of the village society and by the Councils World Heritage Site officer who attended their meetings.  The Chair of the Village society used her position and individual opinion,  in my view incorrectly, to say that it was the Village society position when it wasn't.   This may have subsequently changed but I have not been given any evidence that is so. 

Our response: The letter that came to light during the petitioners appeal was a letter about a consultation in 2008. A letter from an ex-Chair of the Village Society provided just at the point when the case of the petitioners was being heard. So you disregard the current Village Society chair and the petition in favour of the selected person who supported your view with some information from 2008. That does not sound democratic or representative to us.

> After the examination by scrutiny the matter was also referred to Shipley area committee as requested by the scrutiny committee on 26th of Nov. The Area committee - another cross party democratic body - welcomed the report re the public realm proposals including the removal of the trees and asked for further reports re progress. Various community groups including the village society were present at that meeting and had their chance to input 

Our response: Representatives tell us that the matter was not referred to the Area Committee but that a report was presented which was definitely not a consultation. That is why there was no input.

> You are not happy about the consultation - you have had many replies from Cllr Love about the process including how people who live in Saltaire were contacted but I will add that there were also number of articles in the T and A , the issue also appeared on Look North and on the councils Website and also am aware that comments appeared both on Council face book and twitter feeds and were responded to.  I won't comment further as this is the main part of your petition and that hadn't closed yet.   

Our response: I am sure an article or two in T & A and an appearance on Look North is something. But it does not feel like a consultation fit for 1980 let alone 2014.  Leaflets put through doors create a very low response rate (under 3% and more often 0.5%). If a letter is not personally addressed, it is very unlikely to be opened let alone responded to. The Council’s website requires people to seek out information. Why didn’t you initiate conversations on social media more explicitly as an additional channel?  Your displays were all selling a project rather than communicating options and proposals. Your council officers were there to promote the scheme, so as sales go they did not do too well. Only 128 people attended the 2 day event and the 186 responses were made up out of a mix of questionnaires, post-it notes and emails which could of course have been from the same 128 people and where content of the post-it notes and emails would have needed to have been interpreted by the officers. The door to door consultation was carried out by officers along 79 addresses along Victoria Road. It is a bit of a concern that people are claiming this was to tell them the trees were being felled because of disease. We still wonder why the focus of the consultation was placed on one road when a more appropriate process given the World Heritage status would have been to work hard at engaging people within and outside the village.
> You also say that people should have been shown pictures of what it would look like with the trees removed. They were - this was all part of the numerous presentations that were done - both pictures of how it looked before the trees from old photos and postcards and a mock up of how it would look in the future.

Our response: The pictures show street trees by Victoria Hall. This is not true as the street trees are not being replanted there. The pictures show Victoria Road downhill, none show the view up towards the busy Bingley Road. The pictures do not show large road signs for cars to slow down, or indeed the myriad of signs that have appeared… we could go on. These presentations were skewed towards achieving a desired outcome, and even then the results were not decisive to support your decision and justify the felling of all of the trees on Victoria Road.
>
> We have had many many compliments following the tree removal - numerous people have said how well it looks as can see the buildings much better and once we get the public realm completed including the new lighting especially of the lions it will look even better and will bring more people into the area. Indeed today we have positive news about filming in Saltaire for a TV programme and supportive comment in the T& A from Robin Silver

Our response: It’s great that TV programmes and films are shot here - and many have been filmed in Saltaire previous to the cutting down of the trees, including most recently, Hollywood movie The Hunter’s Prayer. And nice to have compliments on what you have done. But there are also many, many people who live here and are dismayed, upset and heartbroken – only 18% are happy according to our survey, which attracted nearly 400 responses. Many object to having the character of their village replaced without open and appropriate processes and consultation.

> You complain about my articles in the press but this is about keeping people up to date as to what happens next.

Our response: Your information is PR and that is understandable in election year. You need to keep positive messages out there, because people are feeling negative. We are not sure how many more signatures, tweets, messages, posts, survey responses you will need to receive to understand the negative impact of your actions on many not least on attitudes towards democracy, accountability and representation.

> Finally I want to stress that when making strategic decisions I have to look at what is best for the area as a whole  as a whole  and balance out the needs of residents , business and visitors as Saltaire is key. I do not base my decision on how you have voted in the past or intend to vote in the future - that is a matter for your local cllrs and you and the ballot box.   What I have outlined above shows how a thorough  DEMOCRATIC decision was reached. One that progressed via the WHS steering group, the council, scrutiny and the area committee but the problem with Democracy is that sometimes the decision you personally want is not the one chosen

Our response: We do not feel this has been democracy. It is a process that has failed people, and as you say, you don’t care about how we vote. We are dismayed by the insensitivity to a community of residents and hope that something will be learned from this. We also note in this last paragraph that you use “I” not “We”. It seems clear that this is your personal preference, but we can assure you that many, many residents do not share your view of the process as democratic or the decision as right for Saltaire.

Thank you for your email.