It seems most people are not happy (which once again supports the survey, the now 3 petitions and the engagement on social media as well as at the event). Most people seem to want replanting ON and further down Victoria Road as well as potentially after yesterday's meeting the management plan revisited. There appears to be huge concern on other factors/ developments too that have happened or are beginning to come. We are planning to meet at 3pm on Sunday - we will update when we have a venue.
It seems to us that there is a mistake being made where committee is being seen as community. The new management plan, designs etc are being done to a community, not with a community but through a committee and committees. There is no clarity of the level of engagement within these smaller networks that fragment the picture and the feedback for decision-making. The structures and governance of the steering group in particular is odd with the chair of the steering group also the leader of regeneration. That was raised yesterday.
This committee system seems to have failed to engage people and it is simply not good enough or sensitive enough to say as Val Slater did last night "well the trees have gone now!" As far as we can see, this is just the start or mid-way point of people getting together to say we have had enough. And if the new management plan includes this kind of structure, perhaps it is not fit for Saltaire?
There appears to be a lot of control in a small number of hands here and that is not demonstrating democracy - we have shared our research results on this blog . Our very latest results show 200 people said they wanted to keep the trees, 101 said they wanted replanting. The actual consultation based the decision on 52 residents which was then narrowed to 26 residents on Victoria Road which it said in the report was 40% wanting to remove the trees. The full consultation report is here.
The fact planning can act without permission too is very concerning. Many double-standards were clear at the meeting yesterday from trees and "entitlement to light", to mortar mixes. Many worry about this design that has removed our leafy character and replaced it with LED lights, new lamps and hideous highway signs because cars don't slow down when they see wide roads
Interesting to note here is that more than 200 trees were planted on the approach roads to four rural villages in north Norfolk which had a history of speeding problems. The experiment was carried out by Norfolk County Council. Provisional results found that drivers reduced their speed on the roads into Martham, Horstead, Mundesley and Overstrand by an average of two miles per hour. Another study here http://www.naturewithin.info/Roadside/Tree&Driver_ITE.pdf indicated a slow down effect when trees were present.
The focus on innovative lighting adding that "wow factor" is bemusing in a village where as residents we see more people moving about in the daytime, seeming to enjoy the tree-framed vistas of buildings and hills - is there really such visitor demand for looking at the lit up nostrils of our lions?
Everything presented yesterday seems to be centred on the tourist and not the resident. A scheme transplanted by the few on to many. This is old school policy making which has been heavily critiqued. In fact only today the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Sajid Javid MP who will receive Saltaire's new management plan next week as head of the DCMS said "heritage is not about being preserved in aspic."
On the heritage point, is it for a council or indeed any group to decide the period of time to freeze a village? The UNESCO inscription was awarded when trees were in place, a village and a community had grown and rooted around it. Who has the right to turn back time exactly?
Since the meeting several people have asked how can a chair of a steering group not be our ward representative? Why so few residents on the group? where is accountability and representation of the electorate?
People don't trust what they are being 'told' and it seems this is for very good reason. The council and committee mechanisms are mind-boggling and inaccessible for the majority. They rely on the seeker of information... We have found one set of minutes from the steering group but may be there are more somewhere else?
We are curious about so many things after last night ...
According to the minutes at scrutiny committee - the last chance there was to extend the consultation, councillors were informed that they were being misled by the petitioners because of a letter from an ex-chair of the village society claiming the majority of residents wanted trees felled in 2008. This letter is yet to materialise and the ex chair said he did not send this yet it was used in that meeting to undermine the petitioners who asked for more time to consult?
The project has been steaming ahead because of the potential risk of jeopardising funds, but the funding was secure in a capital programme until 2016? Councils can also rollover funds.
Why did the council claim the trees were diseased and dying and only give three options when the tree expert said options were endless? And that more than half should be kept and the other half replanted?
why were the artist drawings showing street trees outside Victoria Hall? Why was there not more accurate information on the replanting, the light designs so people could make informed decisions when they chose between the limited options.
Of course the costs of conserving and maintaining trees and paving is a factor.. However the cost of the trees may have been needless as the woodland trust has offered us up to 400 trees for free incidentally. We have also found great reports to help about replanting trees in hard places which we hope will help. These ideas and resources coming from the very engaged community many of whom feel they did contribute but their views were not heard or listened to.
There are no numbers to track how many people actually attended the workshops, consultation events... there is no information about how the officers decided to interpret post-it notes and emails? There is no evidence as yet on the breakdown of spending.
We don't understand why a planning department does not need to follow its own planning procedures and in particular we are perplexed as to why some residents claim officers told them the next step was planning - when it was not. That one piece of information prevented a key stage where objections could have been raised to the tree felling.
There are more questions undoubtedly... lots came up yesterday and we are transcribing as much as we can for those who missed it so they can see the level of debate in that room and the different points of view.
We are committed to getting positive action and outcomes from this level of engagement (last post has over 2400 clicks) but this means council both listening and acting on the views clearly in evidence. We worry that if these voices are not heard, people will disengage more from the processes, the groups and the events that are supposed to facilitate democracy...
Please continue to share your views on ways forward online on our social networks, on here and on Sunday. We feel we need a legacy from Saltaire Trees and hopefully we can meet on Sunday to decide what next - some options
- creating our own buffer zone between the council and the community it has failed with the creation of a Parish Council... or a Republic?!
- more engagement on the next planning applications (assuming they follow the processes..) ?
- considering how our societies can get better engagement from people in particular online communities or those not in established structures and groups to help ensure they are not disregarded or undermined so easily next time?
- and most importantly to decide what people would like to see changed about the plans and other forthcoming developments so we can all start to feel better about where we live, where we work and where we visit.
No comments:
Post a Comment