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.
