Petition presentation

Presentation of petition 

–Transcript and 2 of the annexes sent to full council
on 24 March 2015

This petition calls for a thorough rethink of how the council undertakes new development, with particular reference to a site of such global importance as Saltaire, and how the council engages with the community in terms of the quality of the information provided and the consultation undertaken, before any new developments are initiated. 

As residents of Saltaire and people who love Saltaire, we have been moved to submit this petition because of the very evident limitations in the consultations on the Victoria Road Public Realm Plans; a consultation that has upset hundreds of residents, has misled participants and has made many feel disenfranchised and disengaged from processes. Our results and analysis show that choices made by the council have been based on views expressed by a minority of residents; views that we would argue were not based on sound information or robust consultation. We base this assertion on the three petitions and two survey questionnaires we have conducted, the results of which we will be happy to share with you and one of which is already in the public domain.

The consultation process on the Victoria Road Public Ream scheme is indeed so flawed that we ask the council to reconsider the decisions that have been made and re-connect with the community. Not doing so will have a longer term negative impact on the relationship between the council and the community and will reduce faith in politicians and political processes. In order that future discontent be prevented we ask that council temporarily cease the consideration of all current planning applications until this appeal process is completed and more robust communications and systems are put in place. We would hope that such changes would support other areas of Bradford to have more engaging and collaborative planning processes, restoring confidence in the council and its elected representatives.

This petition is supported by strong evidence in the form of a survey conducted in February with 392 responses and last week through online and door-knocking including 235 residents so that the information you are receiving is informed and evidenced. More than can be said for the council consultation.

Lack of Transparency  

The processes used to start the review of the management plans included a flyer that invited residents to contribute ideas. It was not clear at all at this meeting, what options were being considered. Given the design and wording and timing, it is not surprising that the event only gained input from 25 residents out of a village of 882 households.

The process was led by a self-selected and nominated steering group chaired by Councillor Val Slater. The group of 18 included only 3 resident groups was chaired by a councillor not elected by the ward, and included 5 council representatives and 5 historians. 

The consultation has been described by 161 residents last week in our survey which included a door knocking consultation with 144 residents as poor or very poor. Surely this is not an acceptable result for Bradford Council?

Poor Governance

Councilllor Slater as Chair of the steering group reports to a project board where she is a member and then reports to the leader for planning, housing and transport, which is Val Slater. Such a structure is not open to scrutiny and is not in the public interest. At the very least an elected ward councillor should chair the steering group. Reporting mechanisms should include different representatives otherwise there is clearly a conflict of interest that is not good for Saltaire, nor by extension for Bradford.

Weak Engagement

Although the attendance at the drop-ins and workshops was not recorded we understand it was low, a probable reason for that being that these sessions were advertised as information drop-ins and not as consultations. The consultation letter did not even mention trees (annex A). Given the consultation was on this issue, it is simply not good enough to leave it out of the main communications.

The consultation was limited to village residents only. This has caused considerable upset amongst Bradford residents as well as residents living in the immediate vicinity, many of whom work, use, shop in the village. This was a severe limitation for a site that brings visitors to the city, is described as the jewel in Bradford’s crown and is a world heritage site. It seems council officers deliberately limited engagement when a city-wide and world-wide asset was being re-designed. They claimed 40% of residents wanted trees felled. But actually that was responses, and a very low number of residents (52). Once again in Saltaire alone from 882 households that number is too low. And if we count the ward of 15,000 residents this is very weak engagement.

Misrepresentation

There was a good deal of inconsistency of information given to residents which misrepresented the choices and some claim prevented informed choices being made. For instance residents have reported council officers knocking on their doors and saying the trees are diseased and need to be felled. Others have described the consultation as woolly where details on how many trees could be replanted, or style of lighting were vague or non-existent. The WHS Officer has confirmed there was not a consistent script used.

There was misrepresentation of outcomes to councillors by council officers. The report claimed there had been 186 responses to the consultation and then allocated percentages. The reality is there would very likely only have been 128 responses as post-it notes and emails. It is unlikely those completing post-it notes would not have completed questionnaires. No verification was used to confirm house addresses so it is quite possible that the same respondents emailed and also that more than one member of a household could have completed the survey.

Misleading information

The consultation was divided into three options. People who attended said there seemed to be no alternative. But the tree report stated that the options were endless. One recommendation was to keep half and replant half of the trees – so why wasn’t that an option? 

At the scrutiny committee Councillor Val Slater said people were being misled because of a letter from the ex-branch chair of the Saltaire Village Society about a consultation in 2008. His email was taken against 309 signatures and the present Village society and current residents. On what basis was the evidence he was using scrutinised? How many people were consulted in 2008? Were they the same residents or different residents? This letter misled councillors and without further scrutiny was given far too much credence.

The consultation used images (Annex B) of replanted street trees further down Victoria Road. Many have told us that they thought more trees would be replanted along the road, more than 8 to replace 32. Only now, do council representatives tell us that the trees could not be replanted because of the difficulties caused by the location of the utiiities. Our consultation suggests that if people had known 132 residents would have chosen to not fell the existing trees but to repair the paving and keep them. This is a serious mistake to have made.

To conclude

All of this demonstrates that this process has failed people, fallen far short of democracy and has undermined confidence in the council. To reconnect with the community, we ask on behalf of these 172 petition signatories, the previous 309 signatories, the previous 309 signatories before that, the 240+ people in our survey who are upset with the decision and the 75% of the 235 residents we spoke to last week, the 380+ people on Facebook supporting us, our group and our followers, that you reconsider the decision and look to replant more trees on Victoria Road as there are many resources available, including a great deal of expert advice, on replanting in difficult locations. 

We ask for a thorough review of how council officers and processes are conducted to avoid similar mistakes being made in the near and longer term future. In this we include the request for clarity as to how the council would wish to liaise with the residents of the village and environs in the future and to stop processes in relation to the world heritage site and its immediate vicinity until a more robust approach to decision-making is in evidence.

Annex A

Invitation letter to consultation

Annex B

Example of images used that misled people