I was not surprised to see my Conservative MP for Shipley, Philip Davies, trigger another raft of press and social media controversy yesterday. This time, he is in the stocks for derailing an attempt by Labour backbencher Julie Cooper to exempt carers from car parking fees at NHS hospital. Philip spoke for over 90 minutes to help ensure that Ms Cooper's private member's bill ran out of time and stands no chance of becoming law. This is tragic, as it means that these charges will continue to have a detrimental impact on the lives of tens of thousands of patients, carers and relatives.
The focus of public outrage should, however, be the fact that Tory ministers refused to support Ms Cooper's bill in the first place. If the government had backed this cause, to stop these immoral charges, there would have been little that Philip or his colleagues Christopher Chope and David Nuttall could do to resist (not to mention Jacob Rees-Mogg, whom I spotted lounging lugubriously across the green benches at the far end of the chamber, chipping in occasionally to help extinguish precious parliamentary time).
We have a government that is busy privatising our NHS, opening up our public health care to profiteering private sector providers and, in the process, ripping apart the social fabric and public sector ethos for which the old NHS was world-renowned. Allowing hospitals to levy parking charges on ordinary people visiting their sick relatives is simply another manifestation of the privatising mania that was unleashed on the NHS by the Tories in the early 1990s and expanded in an extreme way with the calamitous passage of the Health and Social Care Act in 2012 (supported, of course, by the Liberal Democrats).
The bottom line is that charging patients to use hospital car parks should be banned. I accept that this would require extra taxpayer funding as the sums raised are quite substantial. The money raised by these charges varies, but can run into millions of pounds of additional revenue per trust. Overall, it is estimated that the total revenue raised each year is around £100 million. But this income stream is a tiny proportion of the overall NHS budget for England of £116.4 billion this year. It is also dwarfed by the £20 billion in 'savings' that Tory ministers expect the NHS to find by 2020, not to mention the huge £3 billion cost of implementing the 'top-down' re-organisation of the NHS overseen by David Cameron since 2012 (a far cry from the Tory leader's promise in 2006 that there would be "no more pointless and disruptive reorganisations").
So, it is entirely reasonable to argue that a government ban on hospital car parking charges would be swift and straightforward to implement AND that the resulting revenue shortfalls could be dealt with affordably. The money can be found - just as George Osborne is apparently going to find a few billion quid in his autumn budget statement for the working poor to offset his planned tax credit cuts. Hospital car parking charges should not be a subject for Friday afternoon debates between a handful of MPs in the Commons, but are a pressing social issue that our government needs to deal with once and for all.
Saturday, 31 October 2015
Friday, 30 October 2015
Thoughts on that Tory Tax Credit Car Crash
It is hard to know where to begin with George Osborne's tax credit car crash as it is such a target-rich environment.
Let's start with the low-grade way in which the tax credit policy was concocted, symptomatic of the dismal quality of much government policy-making (so much for the Tories being the 'natural party of government'). One complaint aired by MPs and peers is their frustration about the lack of detailed justification for the tax credit cuts or reliable information about their impact on Britain's poorest working families. Even the Treasury Select Committee has struggled to get its hands on the data it wants. It should not be left to the IFS to demonstrate that so many people will be so badly hit, or to identify the blatant inaccuracy of Tory assurances that working families will be compensated by other policy changes such as the phased introduction of a (so-called) 'living wage' by 2020. This information should have been on the table months ago, as soon as George Osborne set off down this road in July.
It is also difficult to square the parade of Tories complaining vociferously about the impact of these particular cuts with the fact that many of them have supported shocking reductions on welfare support for so long. Where have they been for the past five years? Many voted for the successive Osborne budgets in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 that worsened poverty and widened inequality across the UK; and those who won their seats for the first time in May stood as Tory candidates squarely behind a manifesto commitment to carve another £12 billion off the welfare bill. It's true that senior Tories were coy about the precise nature of the welfare cuts, but where on earth did these Tories think the axe was going to fall given that pensions are protected? It is also true, as Cameron has pointed out, that these multi-billion pound cuts have attracted majority support in the Commons on several occasions in recent weeks, yet barely any Tory MPs - including those now queuing up so eagerly and publicly to berate the Chancellor - were prepared to stand up and be counted by voting NO. Had they done so sooner, these proposals would have been slung back into the Treasury boiler room long before they ended up in 'The Other Place'.
It is saying something that, as a citizen of one of the world's oldest democracies, my main line of defence against these tax credit cuts has been the House of Lords. I am happy to toast the way these peers wedged their crowbar in the government gearbox. But they remain a group of unelected, unaccountable legislators who have been handed well-paid jobs for life in an absurdly over-populated parliamentary chamber (the second largest in the world). We need a reformed parliament in which power is shared across two chambers and is not concentrated in the hands of a few key individuals who use their single-party majority to dominate the Commons and drive through bad policy. In short, we need this kind of sustained parliamentary scrutiny of government decisions to be the norm rather than the exception and the only way to legitimately achieve that is to elect the upper house.
Excitable press reports that Cameron is threatening to create 100+ new Tory peers to regain Tory control over the Lords are probably exaggerated. Apart from anything, it is hard to imagine that the Queen would be thrilled to play a starring role in such a politicised drama. Moreover, the creation of another batch of 'Cameron Cronies' would shine an unflattering light back on a prime minister who won support from just 38% of voters in May 2015 on a miserly turnout of 66%. In other words, Cameron and Osborne and their cocksure Tory ministerial colleagues - part of a pack of 330 Tory MPs in the Commons - enjoy the backing of barely a quarter of the electorate and are therefore hardly brimming over with democratic legitimacy themselves. If this policy-making disaster has demonstrated one thing about our democracy, it is that a reformed House of Commons is as essential and long-overdue as a reformed House of Lords.
Let's start with the low-grade way in which the tax credit policy was concocted, symptomatic of the dismal quality of much government policy-making (so much for the Tories being the 'natural party of government'). One complaint aired by MPs and peers is their frustration about the lack of detailed justification for the tax credit cuts or reliable information about their impact on Britain's poorest working families. Even the Treasury Select Committee has struggled to get its hands on the data it wants. It should not be left to the IFS to demonstrate that so many people will be so badly hit, or to identify the blatant inaccuracy of Tory assurances that working families will be compensated by other policy changes such as the phased introduction of a (so-called) 'living wage' by 2020. This information should have been on the table months ago, as soon as George Osborne set off down this road in July.
It is also difficult to square the parade of Tories complaining vociferously about the impact of these particular cuts with the fact that many of them have supported shocking reductions on welfare support for so long. Where have they been for the past five years? Many voted for the successive Osborne budgets in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 that worsened poverty and widened inequality across the UK; and those who won their seats for the first time in May stood as Tory candidates squarely behind a manifesto commitment to carve another £12 billion off the welfare bill. It's true that senior Tories were coy about the precise nature of the welfare cuts, but where on earth did these Tories think the axe was going to fall given that pensions are protected? It is also true, as Cameron has pointed out, that these multi-billion pound cuts have attracted majority support in the Commons on several occasions in recent weeks, yet barely any Tory MPs - including those now queuing up so eagerly and publicly to berate the Chancellor - were prepared to stand up and be counted by voting NO. Had they done so sooner, these proposals would have been slung back into the Treasury boiler room long before they ended up in 'The Other Place'.
It is saying something that, as a citizen of one of the world's oldest democracies, my main line of defence against these tax credit cuts has been the House of Lords. I am happy to toast the way these peers wedged their crowbar in the government gearbox. But they remain a group of unelected, unaccountable legislators who have been handed well-paid jobs for life in an absurdly over-populated parliamentary chamber (the second largest in the world). We need a reformed parliament in which power is shared across two chambers and is not concentrated in the hands of a few key individuals who use their single-party majority to dominate the Commons and drive through bad policy. In short, we need this kind of sustained parliamentary scrutiny of government decisions to be the norm rather than the exception and the only way to legitimately achieve that is to elect the upper house.
Excitable press reports that Cameron is threatening to create 100+ new Tory peers to regain Tory control over the Lords are probably exaggerated. Apart from anything, it is hard to imagine that the Queen would be thrilled to play a starring role in such a politicised drama. Moreover, the creation of another batch of 'Cameron Cronies' would shine an unflattering light back on a prime minister who won support from just 38% of voters in May 2015 on a miserly turnout of 66%. In other words, Cameron and Osborne and their cocksure Tory ministerial colleagues - part of a pack of 330 Tory MPs in the Commons - enjoy the backing of barely a quarter of the electorate and are therefore hardly brimming over with democratic legitimacy themselves. If this policy-making disaster has demonstrated one thing about our democracy, it is that a reformed House of Commons is as essential and long-overdue as a reformed House of Lords.
Saturday, 3 October 2015
Further thoughts of Sainsbury's...
I have just emailed in some additional objections, which read as follows.
"Further to my previous objection, I would like to express several additional concerns that I have about this application (partly as well to amplify some points in my first objection).
First, the new lay-by for deliveries only catersfor trucks coming from one direction and leaving in the opposite direction. This will create difficulties (on an already-congested stretch of highway) when the deliverytruck arrives at the site from the Bingley direction or wants to head towards Bradford after completing its delivery.
Second, these deliveries will have to be made across the footpath and therefore will block pedestrian access. Other shops in the area (for example, the Co-Op) have rear access for deliveries.
Third, the proposed delivery-only layby is unlikely to be adequately policed and will almost certainly be used as well bycustomers 'nipping in' for a pint of milk or to use the ATM. This will create problems when deliveries arrive.
Fourth, the application does not adequately resolve the conflict between (a) cars from the Bingley direction seeking to turn right into Sainsburys and (b) cars from the Bradford direction seeking to turn right into Victoria Road (the latter manouvre has become more common since the right turn at the old 'Tramshed' roundabout was outlawed by the new junction there). Linked to this are the tricky manouvres of cars leaving the Sainsbury's car park and turning right towards Bradford. And, remember, all of these vehicle movements will be taking place along a stretch of road that is regularly filled with cars queuing in the Bingley direction (the supermarket will be busiest at these peak commuter times).
Fifth, vehicles entering the car park when it is full will not have enough room to turn round easily and will sometimes seek toreverse out into busy traffic and across a busy footpath. Indeed, the entire parking area is very constrained and leaves very little room for manoeuvring - hardly ideal and potentially dangerous for anyone parking to go into the store with small children.
Sixth, vehicles travelling towards Bingley andwaiting to turn left into the Sainsbury's car park will cause blockage for those wishing to exit Grosvenor Rd.
Seventh, the entrance/exit of Sainsbury's will be directly opposite a busy bus stop which has at least eleven services per hour in daytime (not including school services) and wheretraffic already has to squeeze past parked buses. These drivers already have tonegotiate the right-turners into Grosvenor Rd and Victoria Rd who occupy the centre of the road.
Finally, I would like to add a request that, in the (hopefully unlikely) event that the planning panel has a fit of the vapours and decides to award approval, that two firm conditions are added: (1) that a clearly-marked and signed pedestrian crossing is provided across the entrance to the car park so as to facilitate pedestrian movements and try to minimise the number of cars parked across this busy pedestrian route as they seek access and egress from the site, and (2) that the boundary between the delivery bay and the pavement is bollarded sufficiently to prevent lorries using any part of the footway for their manouvres."
So, if everyone else can pile in too, that would be great!
Sunday, 27 September 2015
Sainsbury's are back! Time to circle the wagons once more...
Well, Sainsbury's have submitted another planning application for a new supermarket on the Bingley Road site of the current car wash, by the junction with Grosvenor Road. This application is very similar to their previous one earlier this year, and so I have just sent in my very similar objections!
If you agree, please object in writing to Martyn Burke at Bradford Council - martyn.burke@bradford.gov.uk. The number of the planning application is 15/04044/FUL and the deadline for comments is Wednesday 14 October 2015.
My specific objections are as follows...
I am objecting – as I did in response to the previous similar application from Sainsbury’s - on three grounds: (1) the likelihood that the new building will add to local noise pollution; (2) the additional traffic and parking nuisance that will be generated if this proposal goes ahead; and (3) the adverse impact that this development will have on local businesses and Saltaire’s economic viability.
If you agree, please object in writing to Martyn Burke at Bradford Council - martyn.burke@bradford.gov.uk. The number of the planning application is 15/04044/FUL and the deadline for comments is Wednesday 14 October 2015.
My specific objections are as follows...
I am objecting – as I did in response to the previous similar application from Sainsbury’s - on three grounds: (1) the likelihood that the new building will add to local noise pollution; (2) the additional traffic and parking nuisance that will be generated if this proposal goes ahead; and (3) the adverse impact that this development will have on local businesses and Saltaire’s economic viability.
I am particularly concerned about the impact of
this development on the amenity of nearby residential homes on Grosvenor Rd and
Grosvenor Av.
Noise Pollution
First, deliveries to the store will take place
throughout the store’s operating hours. Deliveries could therefore be arriving
at 7am and leaving at 11pm, and this application states that the cumulative duration
of these deliveries will span over an hour a day. In fact, if Asda’s delivery
arrangements in Shipley are anything to go by, early deliveries are likely to
park near the store before 7am while waiting to unload, with engines running.
Delays in unloading, as is inevitable from time to time, will also result in
activity at the site beyond 11pm. All of these large vehicle movements will
have an adverse impact on the amenity of nearby residents.
I am also concerned that the operation of this
facility will result in overnight noise pollution for neighbouring residential
homes. The refrigeration plant will operate for 24 hours a day, unlike the
existing car wash. The applicants estimate that the noise of the external plant
will be quite close to existing night time noise levels even with a “judicious
selection of refrigeration plant and/or standard noise mitigation techniques”. My
experience in other contexts (the impact of Asda’s external plant in Shipley
town centre a few years ago, and the operation of Shipley Pool prior to its
refurbishment) is that nearby residential properties are adversely affected by
the noise of external plant. It is reasonable to assume that this equipment
will not operate as perfectly as its design suggests it should and, let’s face
it, proper maintenance is not guaranteed. Much depends as well on the direction
of the wind, as this can boost local noise pollution considerably.
Unsustainable transport and pedestrian safety
I am concerned about the transport implications of
this proposal and, in particular, the impact of frequent vehicle movements
across a well-used pedestrian route. Parking nuisance will also be an
issue.
There are several planning considerations that need
to be borne in mind in in this context.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) “recognises
the importance of promoting developments which encourage travel by sustainable
transport”, that proposals need “to be balanced in favour of sustainable
transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel”, and that “encouragement
should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions and reduce congestion”.
Replacement Unitary Development Policy UDP7 states
the aim of “promoting improved accessibility through enabling the use of public
transport, cycling and walking and reducing the dependency on the private car”.
The West Yorkshire Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3)
2011-2026 commits Bradford Council to “making it easier to access places,
services and amenities by sustainable means” and to “reducing congestion and
supporting greener fuel technologies”.
The applicant (as before) acknowledges that the
proposed development will increase the number of cars accessing the site
compared to the current operation of the car wash. According to the data
provided, the extra two-way vehicle movements could be 62 per weekday
peak hour and 38 per Saturday peak hour. This extra traffic add to local
congestion: 40-60% of these trips on weekday peak periods will be newly
generated by the store, rising to 55% to 75% at weekends.
The extra traffic will result in a significant
number of vehicle movements in and out of the site across a well-used
pedestrian route linking Saltaire with the nearby residential streets. This is
also a key route for parents walking their children to the local primary
schools. While waiting to access the queueing traffic on the main road,
these vehicles will be parked directly across the line of pavement. I already
receive regular complaints from residents about cars queueing to access, and
exit from, the car wash; this development will greatly exacerbate this problem.
These extra traffic movements will start far earlier in the morning than is
currently the case with the existing car wash, and go on far later into the
evening, impeding pedestrian journeys at those times as well.
Parking is another serious concern. It is
reasonable to assume that a proportion of these vehicles will not, in fact,
park on site by the store as the application anticipates, but will use
Grosvenor Road instead - particularly if these drivers already use Grosvenor
Road for their journeys to work or to home and wish to make a short stop at the
store en route. This will result in additional car engine and door banging disturbance
for nearby residents from 7am to 11pm.
I accept that the highway network will be able to
‘absorb’ these additional vehicles, but Saltaire is already blighted with all-day
traffic congestion and a range of related traffic nuisance issues including
significant rat-running and speeding traffic plus parking problems. These proposals
will make a bad situation worse, and increase high carbon travel and pollution
at a time when the Council is in theory committed to decarbonising our economy.
So, yet again, we are faced with proposals that degrade our ability to
decarbonise our lives. For example, as far as I can see, the proposed
development does not provide any sheltered cycle stands (only two unsheltered
cycle stands are proposed) and does not provide any electric vehicle charging
points.
I
would ask colleagues to bear in mind that Policy TM2 of the Replacement UDP
makes it clear that planning permission will not be granted if proposed
developments “adversely affect existing and proposed transport infrastructure
or services” and that “where proposals have a detrimental impact on the
transport network, planning permission will not be granted”. I would argue that
these additional car journeys will place additional stress on the local road
network and the amenity of residents and non-car users, and I hope that colleagues
will take Policy TM2 into consideration.
Unsustainable economy
My third concern is the negative impact of this new
supermarket on the economic resilience of Saltaire.
The Replacement UDP states that the
Council will “as far as it is possible” encourage the growth of independent
specialty shops in places like Saltaire on the grounds that “a preponderance of
such shops helps to keep a centre vibrant and prosperous and lend charm and
individuality in a way that enhances its character and makes a shopping trip to
that centre different from a trip to any other.” The Replacement UDP goes on to
state that the Council will therefore “seek to support the retention and growth
of independent retailers.”
In my view, the proposal undermines the aims stated
above. For example, the applicants assert that the store will create 20 new
jobs, but do not specify how many of these jobs will be part-time or how many
other jobs will be lost in Saltaire as other shops close or reduce their
staffing levels as a result of the diversion of retail footfall that this new
store will trigger. This application does not offer the quantity or quality of
work to local people that it claims, merely an suggestion that these jobs will
be for ‘local’ people.
New supermarkets reduce footfall at local shops and
this new store will divert trade from existing shops in Saltaire at a time when
many are already struggling in the wake of the economic downturn. We know that
hundreds of thousands of small, locally-owned businesses have been driven out
of the UK retail market in recent decades. Local communities have been
‘hollowed out’ economically and homogenised in terms of the retail offer
available to local residents. The insidious impact of this erosion of local
identity has left us denuded of a sense of pride in our immediate economic
communities and lacking control over our economic futures as a result and this
proposed new supermarket can only exert additional economic pressure on Saltaire’s
remaining independent traders.
Moreover,
the new store’s turnover is far less likely to be ‘recycled’ in Saltaire than
would be the case if this money was being spent by shoppers in locally-owned
stores. Money spent in a locally-owned store is three times more likely to be
spent locally by that retailer than is the case with money spent at chain
stores such as Sainsbury’s.
Finally, I would also like the consultation period
to be extended significantly to allow sufficient time for residents to consider
this complex application.
Saturday, 9 May 2015
Post-election thanks!
In case anyone missed the excitement of the results in Shipley yesterday, I was re-elected to represent the Shipley ward for the Greens - a seat that we have held since 2000: https://www.bradford.gov.uk/asp/elections/detail186.html
I would like to thank every single one of the 3,141 people who voted for the Green Party on Thursday, more than ever before. I am also incredibly grateful to everyone who helped with our campaign here in Shipley - our leafletters, our canvassers and our crowdfunders! Thanks to everyone who put up a poster or who allowed us to plant a poster board in their gardens!
Thanks to Matt Edwards for revamping our election leaflet and helping with the content, to Alex Newsham for re-booting our website, and to Dale Deacon for being so supportive in so many ways.
As ever, I am particularly grateful to my cllr colleagues Hawarun Hussain and Martin Love for their huge help and support, as well as their comradeship in the political front line!
Finally, Betts, thanks for your love and support during a month in which I spent far more time outside the house or stuck in my study while you and Laura and Grace kept our family life on track!
Friday, 3 April 2015
Some policy thoughts...
I was recently contacted by Jack Govier at Candidate Hub to provide responses to ten questions. I am very grateful to Jack and his colleagues for their time - http://candidatehub.co.uk/.
The questions, and my responses, are as follows.
1. Obviously our goal is to strengthen the relationship between voters and candidates, but what do you plan to do in order to make sure you remain ‘in touch’ with the electorate?
In Shipley, we hold regular street surgeries to keep in touch with local residents all year round. We also communicate directly with local people via our newsletters and, of course, via social media.
2. What makes you the best candidate for this constituency?
As a member of the Green Party, I am part of the fastest growing political movement in the country. The Greens are the only party that has answers to the economic, social and environmental challenges we face as a society and I would be able to campaign effectively for these ideas in parliament on behalf of Shipley residents. I have already served as a local councillor for the past eleven years. This has given me a wealth of experience of dealing with the everyday problems facing our community in Shipley and the wider area.
3a. What has the current Member achieved that you believe has been successful? (The incumbent will be asked: "What would you have liked to have done differently during your time in Parliament?")
To be fair, Philip Davies has been an active local MP who has kept in touch with local residents and has resisted the temptations of ministerial office in order to concentrate on his political priorities. I would single out his rebel vote against the increase in university tuition fees as one of his best decisions as my MP.
4. In your opinion, is austerity working? What should we take from the state of the economy during this Government’s tenure?
Austerity is not working. The cuts in public spending have been too deep and too fast. The government has not invested enough in the infrastructure of our country – this is part of the reason for our housing crisis and our continuing over-reliance for energy on imported fossil fuels. The result has been the loss of 900,000 experienced people from our over-stretched public services and greater poverty and inequality. Tory-Lib Dem mismanagement of the public finances has led to the government having to borrow nearly £300 billion more over the course of this parliament than it originally planned back in 2010 and the downgrading of our international credit rating. A much more measured rebalancing of government spending, combined with fresh capital investment in our housing, renewable energy and transport infrastructure, will help to build sustainable public finances, provide our citizens with secure jobs and high quality public services and strengthen our economic and environmental resilience for the future.
5. Does (legal) immigration need more limitations or is it vital for the UK?
There are many economic and cultural benefits to living in an open, tolerant society. Millions of Brits travel and work and live abroad, especially in Europe. Millions of overseas nationals live and work in the UK. Migrants to the UK have contributed to our economic wellbeing and changed our country for the better. Let’s face it, the UK population was a third lower a century ago, but we were much poorer in those days than we are now. Many migrants bring skills that we need, many do jobs that need doing. Our NHS would grind to a halt without overseas workers. One in seven new British companies are set up by migrants and hundreds of thousands of migrant workers are highly skilled individuals. Talk of ‘pulling up drawbridges’ or of Britain being ‘full’ is inflammatory, xenophobic nonsense. Benefit tourism and health tourism are marginal problems. Nearly all migrants to the UK work, most are young and healthy and do not have children. They are not a burden on our doctors’ surgeries or our schools. It’s true that the UK has a housing crisis, but this has been primarily caused by the refusal of Labour and Tory governments to allow councils to build enough new homes or to launch a national house-building programme or to step in to stop developers ‘land banking’ vacant brownfield sites. It’s true that some migrants depress the wages of the bottom five per cent of our most poorly-paid jobs, but the answer is to properly introduce and enforce a Living Wage across our economy and ban zero hours contracts. It’s also worth remembering that half of the population growth of the UK over the past fifty years has been home-grown due to the number of children being born here in the UK. So let’s stop scapegoating migrants and manage the UK’s population levels in a more tolerant and intelligent manner. Where migration creates pressures on our public services or housing, the government should step in and provide additional support. We should also, by the way, remember our international legal obligations to treat the refugees who come to the UK fleeing persecution and seeking asylum with generosity, humanity and respect.
6. Many people are concerned about the cost of living in the UK, with wages having failed to rise in line with the price of food, energy and rent in recent years. How can this be corrected?
First, we need to end poverty wages by introducing and enforcing a Living Wage. Good employers already pay their staff decent wages. Bad employers should do the same. Fuel poverty is a growing problem in our society that can be addressed by a national homes retrofitting programme to boost energy efficiency and install the renewable energy technologies that can cut our gas and electricity bills (my electricity bills have halved since we fitted solar PV to our roof, and our gas use is down 40% since we insulated our walls). The solution to the rent rises in the housing sector is to more tightly regulate our rogue landlords, and to build more homes. We can start with the brownfield sites where there is space for around 1.3 million new homes, and we should ensure that most new housing stock coming on stream is cooperatively and socially managed in order to provide the affordable housing that we desperately need.
7. How would you like to see the NHS change in the future in order to become more successful?
The top-down re-organisation of the NHS has been a disaster of epic proportions. My party would repeal the 2012 Health and Social Care Act and reverse the steady privatisation of our health care system. We would reform the NHS internal market that has increased NHS administration costs by at least £5 billion per year, thereby releasing vital funds for stretched front-line services. We would invest an additional £12 billion in health care to deal with the current NHS funding crisis. Finally, we would merge health and social care to provide more comprehensive support for our most vulnerable citizens and abolish social care charges altogether for older people. A country as rich as Britain can afford to look after its sick and elderly citizens with dignity and respect.
8. What measures do you think need to be taken to decrease unemployment, particularly youth unemployment and those who have never been employed?
I believe in the value of markets and the free exchange of goods and services. However, where markets fail to deliver the social goods we value, including secure employment with fulfilling work for our citizens, government has a duty to step in to re-shape our economy for the common good. The Green Party believes that the government has a key role to play in stimulating the infrastructure investment that we need to upgrade our energy, transport and housing sectors and create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process. This intervention must, of course, be linked to an overhaul of our education system and our apprenticeship training programmes so that our young people grow up with the knowledge and the skills they need to make a valuable contribution to our society in their adult lives.
9. Does the lack of diversity in Parliament equate to a lack of representation?
Yes, I would agree. Four fifths of our parliamentarians are men, for example, and the Green Party aims to achieve a 50-50 gender representation by 2025. We need a more diverse range of MPs and Peers to ensure that the concerns of all our citizens are articulated properly and fairly in parliamentary debates about the future of our country. A key element of this process of change would be to reform the House of Lords into an all-elected upper house, as well as lowering the voting age to 16.
10 . If an EU Referendum were to take place, how would you encourage your constituents to vote and why?
I would strongly encourage my constituents to vote so that their voice can be heard, and I would urge them to vote to remain a member state of the EU. The Green Party is the only national party campaigning in favour of an EU referendum AND in favour of staying in. We need a reformed European Union that solves the problems we cannot tackle at a national level, such as energy management, worker protection, biodiversity, food security, cross-border pollution and climate change. And we need a more democratic, decentralised EU in which the economies of the member states become more self-sufficient and environmentally sustainable over time.
The questions, and my responses, are as follows.
1. Obviously our goal is to strengthen the relationship between voters and candidates, but what do you plan to do in order to make sure you remain ‘in touch’ with the electorate?
In Shipley, we hold regular street surgeries to keep in touch with local residents all year round. We also communicate directly with local people via our newsletters and, of course, via social media.
2. What makes you the best candidate for this constituency?
As a member of the Green Party, I am part of the fastest growing political movement in the country. The Greens are the only party that has answers to the economic, social and environmental challenges we face as a society and I would be able to campaign effectively for these ideas in parliament on behalf of Shipley residents. I have already served as a local councillor for the past eleven years. This has given me a wealth of experience of dealing with the everyday problems facing our community in Shipley and the wider area.
3a. What has the current Member achieved that you believe has been successful? (The incumbent will be asked: "What would you have liked to have done differently during your time in Parliament?")
To be fair, Philip Davies has been an active local MP who has kept in touch with local residents and has resisted the temptations of ministerial office in order to concentrate on his political priorities. I would single out his rebel vote against the increase in university tuition fees as one of his best decisions as my MP.
4. In your opinion, is austerity working? What should we take from the state of the economy during this Government’s tenure?
Austerity is not working. The cuts in public spending have been too deep and too fast. The government has not invested enough in the infrastructure of our country – this is part of the reason for our housing crisis and our continuing over-reliance for energy on imported fossil fuels. The result has been the loss of 900,000 experienced people from our over-stretched public services and greater poverty and inequality. Tory-Lib Dem mismanagement of the public finances has led to the government having to borrow nearly £300 billion more over the course of this parliament than it originally planned back in 2010 and the downgrading of our international credit rating. A much more measured rebalancing of government spending, combined with fresh capital investment in our housing, renewable energy and transport infrastructure, will help to build sustainable public finances, provide our citizens with secure jobs and high quality public services and strengthen our economic and environmental resilience for the future.
5. Does (legal) immigration need more limitations or is it vital for the UK?
There are many economic and cultural benefits to living in an open, tolerant society. Millions of Brits travel and work and live abroad, especially in Europe. Millions of overseas nationals live and work in the UK. Migrants to the UK have contributed to our economic wellbeing and changed our country for the better. Let’s face it, the UK population was a third lower a century ago, but we were much poorer in those days than we are now. Many migrants bring skills that we need, many do jobs that need doing. Our NHS would grind to a halt without overseas workers. One in seven new British companies are set up by migrants and hundreds of thousands of migrant workers are highly skilled individuals. Talk of ‘pulling up drawbridges’ or of Britain being ‘full’ is inflammatory, xenophobic nonsense. Benefit tourism and health tourism are marginal problems. Nearly all migrants to the UK work, most are young and healthy and do not have children. They are not a burden on our doctors’ surgeries or our schools. It’s true that the UK has a housing crisis, but this has been primarily caused by the refusal of Labour and Tory governments to allow councils to build enough new homes or to launch a national house-building programme or to step in to stop developers ‘land banking’ vacant brownfield sites. It’s true that some migrants depress the wages of the bottom five per cent of our most poorly-paid jobs, but the answer is to properly introduce and enforce a Living Wage across our economy and ban zero hours contracts. It’s also worth remembering that half of the population growth of the UK over the past fifty years has been home-grown due to the number of children being born here in the UK. So let’s stop scapegoating migrants and manage the UK’s population levels in a more tolerant and intelligent manner. Where migration creates pressures on our public services or housing, the government should step in and provide additional support. We should also, by the way, remember our international legal obligations to treat the refugees who come to the UK fleeing persecution and seeking asylum with generosity, humanity and respect.
6. Many people are concerned about the cost of living in the UK, with wages having failed to rise in line with the price of food, energy and rent in recent years. How can this be corrected?
First, we need to end poverty wages by introducing and enforcing a Living Wage. Good employers already pay their staff decent wages. Bad employers should do the same. Fuel poverty is a growing problem in our society that can be addressed by a national homes retrofitting programme to boost energy efficiency and install the renewable energy technologies that can cut our gas and electricity bills (my electricity bills have halved since we fitted solar PV to our roof, and our gas use is down 40% since we insulated our walls). The solution to the rent rises in the housing sector is to more tightly regulate our rogue landlords, and to build more homes. We can start with the brownfield sites where there is space for around 1.3 million new homes, and we should ensure that most new housing stock coming on stream is cooperatively and socially managed in order to provide the affordable housing that we desperately need.
7. How would you like to see the NHS change in the future in order to become more successful?
The top-down re-organisation of the NHS has been a disaster of epic proportions. My party would repeal the 2012 Health and Social Care Act and reverse the steady privatisation of our health care system. We would reform the NHS internal market that has increased NHS administration costs by at least £5 billion per year, thereby releasing vital funds for stretched front-line services. We would invest an additional £12 billion in health care to deal with the current NHS funding crisis. Finally, we would merge health and social care to provide more comprehensive support for our most vulnerable citizens and abolish social care charges altogether for older people. A country as rich as Britain can afford to look after its sick and elderly citizens with dignity and respect.
8. What measures do you think need to be taken to decrease unemployment, particularly youth unemployment and those who have never been employed?
I believe in the value of markets and the free exchange of goods and services. However, where markets fail to deliver the social goods we value, including secure employment with fulfilling work for our citizens, government has a duty to step in to re-shape our economy for the common good. The Green Party believes that the government has a key role to play in stimulating the infrastructure investment that we need to upgrade our energy, transport and housing sectors and create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process. This intervention must, of course, be linked to an overhaul of our education system and our apprenticeship training programmes so that our young people grow up with the knowledge and the skills they need to make a valuable contribution to our society in their adult lives.
9. Does the lack of diversity in Parliament equate to a lack of representation?
Yes, I would agree. Four fifths of our parliamentarians are men, for example, and the Green Party aims to achieve a 50-50 gender representation by 2025. We need a more diverse range of MPs and Peers to ensure that the concerns of all our citizens are articulated properly and fairly in parliamentary debates about the future of our country. A key element of this process of change would be to reform the House of Lords into an all-elected upper house, as well as lowering the voting age to 16.
10 . If an EU Referendum were to take place, how would you encourage your constituents to vote and why?
I would strongly encourage my constituents to vote so that their voice can be heard, and I would urge them to vote to remain a member state of the EU. The Green Party is the only national party campaigning in favour of an EU referendum AND in favour of staying in. We need a reformed European Union that solves the problems we cannot tackle at a national level, such as energy management, worker protection, biodiversity, food security, cross-border pollution and climate change. And we need a more democratic, decentralised EU in which the economies of the member states become more self-sufficient and environmentally sustainable over time.
Saturday, 7 March 2015
Help protect Saltaire shops from a new Sainsbury's store
I have just objected to the planning application from Sainsbury's to open a new store in Saltaire - my letter to Martyn Burke at the planning office in Bradford is copied below.
Anyone can comment, of course, in several ways:
- Write to Martyn Burke, the Council’s planning officer (post to Planning Office, Bradford Council, 2nd Floor South, Jacob’s Well, Bradford, BD1 5RW)
- Please ensure that you comment individually, as joint comments submitted by several people only count as a single response.
~~~
Dear Martyn,
Objection to Sainsbury’s planning
application 15/00819/FUL
Bingley Road, Saltaire
I am writing to you to object to the planning
application for a new supermarket on Bingley Road in Saltaire.
I am objecting on three grounds: (1) the likelihood
that the new building will add to local noise pollution; (2) the additional
traffic and parking nuisance that will be generated if this proposal goes ahead;
and (3) the adverse impact that this development will have on local businesses
and the economic viability of Saltaire.
I am particularly concerned about the impact of
this development on the amenity of nearby residential homes on Grosvenor Road
and Grosvenor Avenue.
Noise Pollution.
First, deliveries to the store will take place
throughout the store’s operating hours. Deliveries could therefore be arriving
at 7am and leaving at 11pm. Indeed, if Asda’s delivery arrangements in Shipley are
anything to go by, deliveries could be parked near the store earlier than 7am
waiting to unload, with engines running. Delays in unloading, as is inevitable
from time to time, could also result in activity at the site beyond 11pm. All
of this traffic activity will inevitably have an adverse impact on the amenity
of nearby residents.
I am also concerned that the operation of this
facility will result in overnight noise pollution for neighbouring residential
homes. The refrigeration plant will operate for 24 hours a day, unlike the
existing car wash. The Plant Noise report shows that the noise of the external
plant will be quite close to existing night time noise levels “providing it is
well maintained”. However, my experience in other contexts (the impact of
Asda’s external plant in Shipley town centre a few years ago, and the operation
of Shipley Pool prior to its refurbishment) is that nearby residential
properties can be adversely affected by the noise of external plant. It is reasonable
to assume that this equipment will not operate as perfectly as its design
suggests it should and, let’s face it, proper maintenance is not guaranteed.
Much depends as well on the direction of the wind, as this can boost local noise
pollution considerably.
Unsustainable transport and pedestrian safety
I am concerned about the transport implications of
this proposal and, in particular, the impact of frequent vehicle movements
across a well-used pedestrian route. Parking will also be an issue.
There are several planning considerations that need
to be borne in mind in in this context.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) “recognises
the importance of promoting developments which encourage travel by sustainable
transport”, that proposals need “to be balanced in favour of sustainable
transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel”, and that “encouragement
should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions and reduce congestion”.
Replacement Unitary Development Policy UDP7 states
the aim of “promoting improved accessibility through enabling the use of public
transport, cycling and walking and reducing the dependency on the private car”.
The West Yorkshire Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3)
2011-2026 commits Bradford Council to “making it easier to access places,
services and amenities by sustainable means” and to “reducing congestion and
supporting greener fuel technologies”.
The applicant acknowledges that the proposed
development will increase the number of cars accessing the site compared to the
current operation of the car wash. According to the data provided, the extra
two-way vehicle movements could be 62 per weekday peak hour and 38 per Saturday
peak hour. This extra traffic add to local congestion: 40-60% of these trips on
weekday peak periods will be newly generated by the store, rising to 55% to 75%
at weekends.[1]
More importantly, the extra traffic will also result
in a significant number of vehicle movements in and out of the site across a
well-used pedestrian route linking Saltaire with the nearby residential streets.
This is also a key route for parents walking their children to the local
primary schools. While waiting to access the queueing traffic on the main road,
these vehicles will be parked directly across the line of pavement. I already receive
regular complaints from residents about cars queueing to access, and exit from,
the car wash; this development will inevitably exacerbate this problem.
These extra traffic movements will start far
earlier in the morning than is currently the case with the existing car wash, and
go on far later into the evening, impeding pedestrian journeys at those times
as well.
Parking is another serious concern. It is
reasonable to assume that a proportion of these vehicles will not, in fact,
park on site in front of the store as the application anticipates, but will use
Grosvenor Road instead - particularly if these drivers already use Grosvenor
Road for their journeys and wish to make a short stop at the store en route.
This will result in additional car engine and door banging disturbance for
nearby residents from 7am to 11pm.
I accept that the highway network will be able to
‘absorb’ these additional vehicles, but Saltaire is already blighted with all-day
traffic congestion and a range of related traffic nuisance issues including
significant rat-running and speeding traffic plus parking problems. These proposals
will make a bad situation worse, and increase high carbon travel and pollution
at a time when the Council is committed to decarbonising our economy. So, yet
again, we are faced with proposals that actively degrade our ability to
decarbonise our lives.
As far as I can tell from the documents available
on the planning portal, the proposed development neither includes any sheltered
cycle stands nor mentions the provision of any electric vehicle charging points.
I
would ask colleagues to bear in mind that Policy TM2 of the Replacement UDP
makes it clear that planning permission will not be granted if proposed
developments “adversely affect existing and proposed transport infrastructure
or services” and that “where proposals have a detrimental impact on the
transport network, planning permission will not be granted”. I would argue that
these additional car journeys will place additional stress on the local road
network and the amenity of residents and non-car users, and I hope that colleagues
will take Policy TM2 into consideration.
Unsustainable economy
My third concern is the negative impact of this new
supermarket on the economic resilience of Saltaire.
The Replacement UDP states that the
Council will “as far as it is possible” encourage the growth of independent
specialty shops in places like Saltaire on the grounds that “a preponderance of
such shops helps to keep a centre vibrant and prosperous and lend charm and
individuality in a way that enhances its character and makes a shopping trip to
that centre different from a trip to any other.” The Replacement UDP goes on to
state that the Council will therefore “seek to support the retention and growth
of independent retailers.”
In my view, the proposal undermines the aims stated
above. For example, the applicants assert that the store will create new jobs,
but do not specify how many of these jobs will be part-time or how many other
jobs will be lost in Saltaire as other shops close or reduce their staffing
levels as a result of the diversion of retail footfall that this new store will
trigger. This application does not offer the quantity or quality of work to
local people that it claims.
New supermarkets reduce footfall at local shops and
this new store will divert trade from existing shops in Saltaire at a time when
many are already struggling in the wake of the economic downturn. We know that
hundreds of thousands of small, locally-owned businesses have been driven out
of the UK retail market in recent decades. Local communities have been
‘hollowed out’ economically and homogenised in terms of the retail offer
available to local residents. The insidious impact of this erosion of local
identity has left us denuded of a sense of pride in our immediate economic
communities and lacking control over our economic futures as a result and this
proposed new supermarket can only exert additional economic pressure on Saltaire’s
remaining independent traders.
Moreover,
the new store’s turnover is far less likely to be ‘recycled’ in Saltaire than
would be the case if this money was being spent by shoppers in locally-owned
stores. Money spent in a locally-owned store is three times more likely to be
spent locally by that retailer than is the case with money spent at chain
stores such as Sainsbury’s.
I hope that you will bear these comments in mind as
you assess this application. I would also request, if officers are minded to
recommend approval, that the application is considered by the area planning
panel of councillors.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Kevin Warnes (Shipley Ward
Councillor)
[1]
I note that these figures are based on the operation of larger food stores; but
the adjusted figures provided by the applicants remain significant and it
is not clear that they are based on robust data from elsewhere.
Sunday, 22 February 2015
Victoria Road Public Realm Scheme - Further Thoughts...
Looking ahead to the public meeting on Wednesday evening at Saltaire Methodist Church Hall regarding the Victoria Road Public Realm scheme, a few thoughts on where we are at.
First of all, I would again like to thank the residents who were involved in the online consultation that finished at the weekend, and Jackie Mulligan in particular for taking the time to set up and manage the process. I particularly appreciated meeting Jackie, Jamie and Caroline yesterday to talk through all the issues and gained a much better appreciation for, and understanding of, the perspective of residents like them who have been so concerned about the process to date and the loss of the woodland trees.
The results of the survey make very interesting reading and demonstrate that the Council can and should do more in future to open up additional spaces for debate and feedback when carrying out its public policy consultations. I hope that this will be taken on board by the Council and that other council representatives will meet with the residents as well to listen to and discuss their concerns.
The survey also confirmed that many of those who took part in this latest survey felt that the Council's earlier consultation was inadequate and that they did not feel that their views had been properly taken on board. This is quite serious as, regardless of the decisions that are eventually made in these circumstances, it is absolutely vital that as many people as possible (who wish to do so) are proactively engaged in the discussions. This is particularly important in circumstances where the options being considered are likely to generate such controversy.
Our priority as ward councillors now is to ensure that the Council pays close attention to the many residents who have expressed their support for trees on Victoria Road throughout this long process. The Council's own consultation last April showed that most people wanted to see trees on Victoria Road, and the Green councillors have pressed for as many replacement street trees as possible to be planted as the public realm project has proceeded. We have had to argue very strongly for this, because the Council's preference in mid-2014 was for no replacement trees at all - this was the decision made by the Project Board in June and backed by a majority vote at the subsequent Steering Group meeting. The Council argued that, since more people voted for Option 1 (no trees at all) in the April consultation than voted for each of the other two options that included trees, replacement trees should not be considered. This made no sense to us then or now, as the combined support for Options 2 and 3 clearly outweighed Option 1. Indeed, at the risk of getting overly technical, had the officers employed a preferential voting system for the three options, rather than the first past the post method that they used, it is reasonable to assume that Option 2 (as many replacement trees as possible) would have prevailed.
Anyway, we argued the case and the Council agreed to dig exploratory tree pits to identify where new trees could be planted. The tree pits had not been planned and we were told that carrying out this work would use funds that could be invested elsewhere in the project. However, we insisted on the pits being dug and they revealed that there is room for eight replacement trees on the upper stretch of Victoria Road. These trees are now being planted and - to be scrupulously fair - we are grateful that the senior councillors and officers on the Project Board listened to our point of view.
So, at the risk of labouring the point, these new trees are a direct result of our intervention in the process and would not have been included in the scheme at all if Shipley's three Green councillors had not repeatedly reminded colleagues that most local residents wanted trees on Victoria Road. This is documented clearly in paragraph 2.2.2 on page 5 of the report about the scheme that went to the Regeneration and Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 8 October 2014 (you can, hopefully, read the report here: http://councilminutes.bradford.gov.uk/wps/PA_CommitteeMinutes/DisplayDocServlet?docID=12984).
Unfortunately, the tree pit surveys also revealed that the extensive presence of a number of underground services (pipes, cables) beneath the pavements elsewhere makes it practically impossible to plant replacement trees up and down the rest of Victoria Road. New trees require proper tree pits, these take up space and cannot go in where there are services like this. So we asked what it would cost to move the services; we were told that the cost of moving one of the cables alone would have been £113,000 plus VAT and that moving all the services was simply beyond the financial scope of the project. We felt that this was advice we had to accept.
So the Green councillors have sought instead to secure some replacement trees on the carriageway itself. We argued in the autumn that planting trees in build-outs or even tree tubs would not only help mitigate the loss of the woodland trees, but would slow car speeds and help Saltaire's many pedestrians to cross the road more safely. We were advised, however, that there are underground services beneath the carriageway as well, and that altering the line of the pavements would undermine the architectural heritage of the village. These are serious considerations, for sure, but we remained unconvinced and have urged the Council to revisit the option of providing additional street trees in some form on the carriageway. We argue that additional trees can be accommodated in ways that do not dramatically alter the heritage character of the village and would, in fact, help to screen the numerous parked cars that were certainly not a feature of Victorian Saltaire.
We have also, incidentally, asked the Council to do more to plant replacement trees on adjacent plots of land, such as the Caroline Street car park, and understand that this is an option that is under consideration as well.
The bottom line is this. The Green councillors want as many trees as possible to be planted in and around Victoria Road and we welcome all suggestions that will help us to persuade the Council to do so in the months and years ahead. The scheme will bring significant benefits to Saltaire, including beautifully renewed paving, but we need to ensure that this busy road has as much tree life as possible within the urban constraints of a 21st Century village.
Finally, in closing, I would strongly encourage residents to attend the Saltaire World Heritage Site Information Session at Saltaire Methodist Church, Wednesday 25 February, 7-9pm. All details here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/bmdc/community_and_living/neighbourhoods/neighbourhood_forums_events/Saltaire_WHS_250215
All of the Council information relating to this project can be found here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/bmdc/the_environment/conservation_and_design/victoria_road_saltaire
The Scheme Drawing can be found here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B112E549-54DE-4203-8C8F-9B87E0DD8EF5/0/VictoriaRoadSaltaireSchemeDrawing.pdf
The independent tree survey can be found here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/158EFFA8-375B-4D4D-8CAD-6281FC8A22D7/0/INDEPENDENTTREESURVEYVictoriaRoadSaltaire.pdf
The summary report of the public consultation held in March 2014 can be found here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F113C9CE-AE6D-4873-9D83-77F871B49101/0/VictoriaRoadSchemeConsultationResultsSummaryReport.pdf
The Consultation Document can be found here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/6423558D-8C29-4AA0-A95B-45227A7B37FE/0/VICTORIAROADCONSULTATIONDOCUMENT.pdf
You can view the survey and the feedback here: https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/44699866
The survey showed that many Saltaire residents feel understandably upset about the removal of the 32 woodland trees on Victoria Road. The comments were particularly revealing in this respect, although perhaps not all that surprising given the attachment that many people including myself felt for these trees.
The survey showed that many Saltaire residents feel understandably upset about the removal of the 32 woodland trees on Victoria Road. The comments were particularly revealing in this respect, although perhaps not all that surprising given the attachment that many people including myself felt for these trees.
The survey also confirmed that many of those who took part in this latest survey felt that the Council's earlier consultation was inadequate and that they did not feel that their views had been properly taken on board. This is quite serious as, regardless of the decisions that are eventually made in these circumstances, it is absolutely vital that as many people as possible (who wish to do so) are proactively engaged in the discussions. This is particularly important in circumstances where the options being considered are likely to generate such controversy.
Our priority as ward councillors now is to ensure that the Council pays close attention to the many residents who have expressed their support for trees on Victoria Road throughout this long process. The Council's own consultation last April showed that most people wanted to see trees on Victoria Road, and the Green councillors have pressed for as many replacement street trees as possible to be planted as the public realm project has proceeded. We have had to argue very strongly for this, because the Council's preference in mid-2014 was for no replacement trees at all - this was the decision made by the Project Board in June and backed by a majority vote at the subsequent Steering Group meeting. The Council argued that, since more people voted for Option 1 (no trees at all) in the April consultation than voted for each of the other two options that included trees, replacement trees should not be considered. This made no sense to us then or now, as the combined support for Options 2 and 3 clearly outweighed Option 1. Indeed, at the risk of getting overly technical, had the officers employed a preferential voting system for the three options, rather than the first past the post method that they used, it is reasonable to assume that Option 2 (as many replacement trees as possible) would have prevailed.
Anyway, we argued the case and the Council agreed to dig exploratory tree pits to identify where new trees could be planted. The tree pits had not been planned and we were told that carrying out this work would use funds that could be invested elsewhere in the project. However, we insisted on the pits being dug and they revealed that there is room for eight replacement trees on the upper stretch of Victoria Road. These trees are now being planted and - to be scrupulously fair - we are grateful that the senior councillors and officers on the Project Board listened to our point of view.
So, at the risk of labouring the point, these new trees are a direct result of our intervention in the process and would not have been included in the scheme at all if Shipley's three Green councillors had not repeatedly reminded colleagues that most local residents wanted trees on Victoria Road. This is documented clearly in paragraph 2.2.2 on page 5 of the report about the scheme that went to the Regeneration and Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 8 October 2014 (you can, hopefully, read the report here: http://councilminutes.bradford.gov.uk/wps/PA_CommitteeMinutes/DisplayDocServlet?docID=12984).
Unfortunately, the tree pit surveys also revealed that the extensive presence of a number of underground services (pipes, cables) beneath the pavements elsewhere makes it practically impossible to plant replacement trees up and down the rest of Victoria Road. New trees require proper tree pits, these take up space and cannot go in where there are services like this. So we asked what it would cost to move the services; we were told that the cost of moving one of the cables alone would have been £113,000 plus VAT and that moving all the services was simply beyond the financial scope of the project. We felt that this was advice we had to accept.
So the Green councillors have sought instead to secure some replacement trees on the carriageway itself. We argued in the autumn that planting trees in build-outs or even tree tubs would not only help mitigate the loss of the woodland trees, but would slow car speeds and help Saltaire's many pedestrians to cross the road more safely. We were advised, however, that there are underground services beneath the carriageway as well, and that altering the line of the pavements would undermine the architectural heritage of the village. These are serious considerations, for sure, but we remained unconvinced and have urged the Council to revisit the option of providing additional street trees in some form on the carriageway. We argue that additional trees can be accommodated in ways that do not dramatically alter the heritage character of the village and would, in fact, help to screen the numerous parked cars that were certainly not a feature of Victorian Saltaire.
We have also, incidentally, asked the Council to do more to plant replacement trees on adjacent plots of land, such as the Caroline Street car park, and understand that this is an option that is under consideration as well.
The bottom line is this. The Green councillors want as many trees as possible to be planted in and around Victoria Road and we welcome all suggestions that will help us to persuade the Council to do so in the months and years ahead. The scheme will bring significant benefits to Saltaire, including beautifully renewed paving, but we need to ensure that this busy road has as much tree life as possible within the urban constraints of a 21st Century village.
Finally, in closing, I would strongly encourage residents to attend the Saltaire World Heritage Site Information Session at Saltaire Methodist Church, Wednesday 25 February, 7-9pm. All details here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/bmdc/community_and_living/neighbourhoods/neighbourhood_forums_events/Saltaire_WHS_250215
In the meantime, if you would like to contact the Council for detailed information about any aspect of this project, you can email our World Heritage Site Officer, Helen Thornton, at helen.thornton@bradford.gov.uk.
You can also contact the portfolio holder on the Executive Committee with overall responsibility for the project, Cllr Val Slater, at val.slater@bradford.gov.uk.
You can also contact the portfolio holder on the Executive Committee with overall responsibility for the project, Cllr Val Slater, at val.slater@bradford.gov.uk.
----
All of the Council information relating to this project can be found here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/bmdc/the_environment/conservation_and_design/victoria_road_saltaire
The Scheme Drawing can be found here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B112E549-54DE-4203-8C8F-9B87E0DD8EF5/0/VictoriaRoadSaltaireSchemeDrawing.pdf
The independent tree survey can be found here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/158EFFA8-375B-4D4D-8CAD-6281FC8A22D7/0/INDEPENDENTTREESURVEYVictoriaRoadSaltaire.pdf
The summary report of the public consultation held in March 2014 can be found here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F113C9CE-AE6D-4873-9D83-77F871B49101/0/VictoriaRoadSchemeConsultationResultsSummaryReport.pdf
The Consultation Document can be found here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/6423558D-8C29-4AA0-A95B-45227A7B37FE/0/VICTORIAROADCONSULTATIONDOCUMENT.pdf
Saturday, 21 February 2015
Sainsbury's in Saltaire? No thanks!
Here is the letter I have just emailed off to the T&A.
When will we get a government that will protect our local independent traders from the predatory competition of the big supermarkets?
When markets fail to support resilient community life, government must step in.
Sir,
When will we get a government that will protect our local independent traders from the predatory competition of the big supermarkets?
When markets fail to support resilient community life, government must step in.
Sir,
I share the concerns of many residents about Sainsbury’s
apparent interest in opening a store in
Saltaire.
Several residents have received letters from Sainsbury’s,
but tell me they are happy with their choice of shops. I agree. Saltaire’s high
street is celebrated as a thriving shopping parade, with shops ranging from the
local Co-op to smaller, friendly independent traders.
A new Sainsbury’s will undermine these local retailers and
hit the Co-op as well. It will also complicate a traffic situation that is far
from ideal, but at least safer now the old roundabout has been replaced by a
light-controlled junction. I am sure residents living on nearby Grosvenor Road
will not welcome the extra parking nuisance this shop would bring in.
I hope local people will contribute to the planning process
if a formal application is submitted, and I will do my best to ensure the
matter is properly considered by the area planning panel in due course.
In the longer term, we also need government action to
protect our local shops from being unfairly squeezed out of business by the
multi-billion pound supermarket chains.
Yours faithfully,
Cllr Kevin Warnes (Shipley, Green)
Saturday, 14 February 2015
Saltaire Trees - My Perspective
Those of you who follow developments closely in Saltaire will have noticed a number of tweets and facebook posts in recent days expressing concerns about the 'lost trees' - the 32 mature forest trees that are being removed by Bradford Council as the first part of its 'Public Realm Improvement Scheme' for Victoria Road. Here is my perspective about what is happening.
The trees on Victoria Road were planted in the late 1940s or early 1950s. For reasons beyond the realm of human understanding, the bright sparks at the town hall decided to introduce forest varieties rather than more appropriate and smaller 'street trees'. As was presumably standard practice at that time, the Council simply dug up the flagstones and stuck the trees into the ground rather than altering the road, kerb and paving in order to properly accommodate them. In the decades that followed, the saplings gradually matured into the very large and impressive trees that graced Victoria Road for many years.
Many residents, myself included, have appreciated these trees enormously for their beauty, their amenity and, of course, for their shading and other urban environmental benefits. I have supported the work of Forest of Bradford in planting 500,000+ trees across our district in recent years precisely because of the huge ecological value they provide. I fully understand why many local people became attached to the trees in Saltaire, myself included. When Council officers have previously sought to remove any of the trees, I have insisted on explanations and, in some cases, challenged the proposals. When four trees near the junction with Saltaire Road were earmarked for removal several years ago following a serious road accident, for example, I supported the resident campaign to save them as I did not think the trees were the primary reason for the crash.
At the same time, whenever we have conducted our Saltaire street surgeries, we have fielded complaints from residents about the impact of these huge trees on the close-knit residential setting of the village. Local people have pointed out the way in which the trees have restricted access along the pavements and have forced up the paving and tilted nearby walls as the roots have grown and shifted. Not a problem for able-bodied people like me, but an issue for many elderly folk, not to mention our disabled neighbours and visitors or parents pushing buggies. Some of the trees are so big and so close to windows that they have also reduced the light available for residents' homes, leaving some people reliant on indoor lighting in their front rooms throughout the day.
It was for these reasons, as well as a desire to invest in improving the amenity of the main thoroughfare of this increasingly popular world heritage site and tourist destination, that the Council considered investing in regenerating Victoria Road. This process was managed by the Council's Executive Committee, since the funding was coming from the central budget, but the Shipley ward councillors were consulted as the discussions unfolded. Our aim from the outset as ward councillors was to influence the decision-making process in order to ensure that the outcomes were properly thought through and informed by the preferences of local people.
My initial assumption was that the project would involve creating high quality public realm in a way that would retain most or all of the existing trees. To my non-expert eye, the trees seemed fine. However, in December 2013, an independent arboricultural report commissioned by the Council concluded that the tree population was "struggling", with only a third of them in good condition; a quarter of them had a life expectancy of less than ten years; half of them would need to be removed within twenty years; three-quarters within thirty years, and ninety per cent within forty years.
This was a shock, but it was the key reason why the ward councillors eventually agreed with the proposal to remove the trees as part of the public realm proposals drawn up by the Council's team. We could have taken the easy way out, and campaigned for the trees to be kept for the time being and then cut down one by one every year or two for the next few decades. We could even have washed our hands of the whole deal and blamed the 'Labour Executive' for 'destroying our much-loved tree population'. We could have kept our heads down. But we accepted the case that, by removing the trees in 'one go' at this stage, the Council would be able to create the opportunity to plough £700,000+ into restoring the pavements, the street lighting and make other valuable civic improvements in a project that will result in a regenerated urban space in line with the heritage aspects of the village. These are some of the most beautiful and iconic buildings in the country and the village is of course celebrated worldwide for its architectural and historic value. To gradually remove the trees and do ad hoc 'patch and mend' works for years to come would have precluded a proper long-term solution and - crucially - would not have saved the trees in the longer term anyway.
Having said that, of course, we immediately pressed for as many of the trees as possible to be replaced. The officers advised us, not unreasonably, that planting new trees would disrupt the architectural integrity of the scheme that was being proposed; that new trees would not be in keeping with the 'restoration' of a world heritage setting that for its first century had not had any trees at all; and that providing them would cost money that could be spent on other public realm improvements. Nonetheless, we pressed the case for replacement trees because this is what most residents wanted.
Exploratory tree pits were therefore dug - at our insistence - up and down Victoria Road to see where new trees could be introduced. The results were conclusive and - unfortunately from our point of view - negative. Due to the presence of extensive underground cabling and pipes, the only location where new trees can be planted is along one side of the upper part of Victoria Road. Trees require sizeable tree pits in order to enable them to flourish. Moving the cables and pipes, even assuming that alternative routes could be found given the nearby presence of other services beneath the highway, would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and is well beyond the scope of this budget. We were told that moving ONE of the cables alone would cost £113,000 plus VAT. So, again, we reviewed the evidence and settled on a limited number of new replacement street trees as the only possible option.
So, to recap, it seems to me that the Council is responding to several fundamental and unavoidable challenges: the existing 'forest' tree population on Victoria Road was unsustainable in this tight urban setting; 90% of the trees would not have survived in the longer term; we are unable to replant new trees along most of Victoria Road due to the cabling and pipes that run beneath the pavements; it would be too expensive to move the cabling and pipes, even if we could find the space to make it possible to do so; and leaving the trees in situ and removing one of them on average each year for the next 30-40 years would not allow us to create a regenerated public realm in one go, but would instead leave in place the dilapidated street scene, ugly street lighting and cracked and uneven paving that has understandably bothered residents for years.
The bottom line is this. No one at all, neither councillor, officer nor member of the public has been able to offer us a workable solution at any stage over the past two years that would have allowed the Council to keep these huge forest trees on Victoria Road; no alternative viable policy option in any of the meetings, or emails, or phone conversations, or public meetings, or neighbourhood forums, or via the Council website, or tweets, or facebook posts, or on the doorsteps when the local Green councillors have carried out our Saltaire street surgeries, or in the pub, or in response to the Council's consultation (see below). We have never seen a plan that might enable us to rejuvenate and sustain the tree population into the distant future, provide world-class paving and other high quality street furniture and open up the fabulous architectural heritage of this urban setting.
It is also the case that 70% of the people who participated in the Council's consultation held in March and April 2014 wanted all of the existing trees removed. About half of these residents also wanted as many replacement trees as possible to be introduced, which is what we are doing. Less than a quarter of the respondents wanted the existing trees retained. The results, though mixed, were clear enough. Most people, even though they wanted trees, recognised that the existing trees were unsustainable in this particular urban setting.
The consultation process has been criticised in recent days for not being sufficiently extensive or open-ended, so let's be clear about what happened. Council officers carried out a door-to-door survey of all 79 addresses on Victoria Road; the Council also wrote to every resident living in Saltaire advising how they could take part in the consultation; two public drop-in exhibition sessions were held in early April in Saltaire so that residents could study the proposals, ask officers any questions and submit their comments; all of the information was published online and residents were also able to comment electronically if they wished to do so.
My settled view is that the consultation gathered sufficient feedback to enable the officers and the Executive Committee to broadly gauge public opinion and determine what to do next. In particular, the fact that the residents who took part were able to see the plans and ask detailed questions and offer additional suggestions meant that it was a qualitative process as well as a quantitative exercise.
In closing, let me stress that we supported this Executive Committee decision because it was the best one to take in these difficult circumstances. We pushed officers at every stage to justify their recommendations. We pressed for the tree pit surveys and we insisted on new trees being planted in all the locations where this is possible. We also, incidentally, asked for new trees in raised planter beds to be considered, partly as a means of improving traffic and parking management on Victoria Road. This was ruled out, to our disappointment, but it is an idea that we hope to revisit in future.
One final thought. It is my genuine impression that everyone involved in this process from the outset - councillors, officers, consultants - has done their best to ensure that the solution arrived at by Bradford Council is the best we can achieve and has worked hard to listen to the views of local people as well. No one has been more conscientious and considerate in this regard than our World Heritage Site officer. I think it is a good scheme and I look forward to seeing it completed in the months ahead. I'll miss the trees as well, but I honestly think that the Council made the right decision and I hope very much that this will be taken on board by everyone who reads this post.
If you would like to contact the Council for detailed information about any aspect of this project, you can email our World Heritage Site Officer, Helen Thornton, at helen.thornton@bradford.gov.uk.
You can also contact the portfolio holder on the Executive Committee with overall responsibility for the project, Cllr Val Slater, at val.slater@bradford.gov.uk.
I would strongly encourage residents to attend the Saltaire World Heritage Site Information Session at Saltaire Methodist Church, Wednesday 25 February, 7-9pm. All details here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/bmdc/community_and_living/neighbourhoods/neighbourhood_forums_events/Saltaire_WHS_250215
All of the Council information relating to this project can be found here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/bmdc/the_environment/conservation_and_design/victoria_road_saltaire
The Scheme Drawing can be found here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B112E549-54DE-4203-8C8F-9B87E0DD8EF5/0/VictoriaRoadSaltaireSchemeDrawing.pdf
The independent tree survey can be found here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/158EFFA8-375B-4D4D-8CAD-6281FC8A22D7/0/INDEPENDENTTREESURVEYVictoriaRoadSaltaire.pdf
The summary report of the public consultation held in March 2014 can be found here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F113C9CE-AE6D-4873-9D83-77F871B49101/0/VictoriaRoadSchemeConsultationResultsSummaryReport.pdf
The Consultation Document can be found here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/6423558D-8C29-4AA0-A95B-45227A7B37FE/0/VICTORIAROADCONSULTATIONDOCUMENT.pdf
The trees on Victoria Road were planted in the late 1940s or early 1950s. For reasons beyond the realm of human understanding, the bright sparks at the town hall decided to introduce forest varieties rather than more appropriate and smaller 'street trees'. As was presumably standard practice at that time, the Council simply dug up the flagstones and stuck the trees into the ground rather than altering the road, kerb and paving in order to properly accommodate them. In the decades that followed, the saplings gradually matured into the very large and impressive trees that graced Victoria Road for many years.
Many residents, myself included, have appreciated these trees enormously for their beauty, their amenity and, of course, for their shading and other urban environmental benefits. I have supported the work of Forest of Bradford in planting 500,000+ trees across our district in recent years precisely because of the huge ecological value they provide. I fully understand why many local people became attached to the trees in Saltaire, myself included. When Council officers have previously sought to remove any of the trees, I have insisted on explanations and, in some cases, challenged the proposals. When four trees near the junction with Saltaire Road were earmarked for removal several years ago following a serious road accident, for example, I supported the resident campaign to save them as I did not think the trees were the primary reason for the crash.
At the same time, whenever we have conducted our Saltaire street surgeries, we have fielded complaints from residents about the impact of these huge trees on the close-knit residential setting of the village. Local people have pointed out the way in which the trees have restricted access along the pavements and have forced up the paving and tilted nearby walls as the roots have grown and shifted. Not a problem for able-bodied people like me, but an issue for many elderly folk, not to mention our disabled neighbours and visitors or parents pushing buggies. Some of the trees are so big and so close to windows that they have also reduced the light available for residents' homes, leaving some people reliant on indoor lighting in their front rooms throughout the day.
It was for these reasons, as well as a desire to invest in improving the amenity of the main thoroughfare of this increasingly popular world heritage site and tourist destination, that the Council considered investing in regenerating Victoria Road. This process was managed by the Council's Executive Committee, since the funding was coming from the central budget, but the Shipley ward councillors were consulted as the discussions unfolded. Our aim from the outset as ward councillors was to influence the decision-making process in order to ensure that the outcomes were properly thought through and informed by the preferences of local people.
My initial assumption was that the project would involve creating high quality public realm in a way that would retain most or all of the existing trees. To my non-expert eye, the trees seemed fine. However, in December 2013, an independent arboricultural report commissioned by the Council concluded that the tree population was "struggling", with only a third of them in good condition; a quarter of them had a life expectancy of less than ten years; half of them would need to be removed within twenty years; three-quarters within thirty years, and ninety per cent within forty years.
This was a shock, but it was the key reason why the ward councillors eventually agreed with the proposal to remove the trees as part of the public realm proposals drawn up by the Council's team. We could have taken the easy way out, and campaigned for the trees to be kept for the time being and then cut down one by one every year or two for the next few decades. We could even have washed our hands of the whole deal and blamed the 'Labour Executive' for 'destroying our much-loved tree population'. We could have kept our heads down. But we accepted the case that, by removing the trees in 'one go' at this stage, the Council would be able to create the opportunity to plough £700,000+ into restoring the pavements, the street lighting and make other valuable civic improvements in a project that will result in a regenerated urban space in line with the heritage aspects of the village. These are some of the most beautiful and iconic buildings in the country and the village is of course celebrated worldwide for its architectural and historic value. To gradually remove the trees and do ad hoc 'patch and mend' works for years to come would have precluded a proper long-term solution and - crucially - would not have saved the trees in the longer term anyway.
Having said that, of course, we immediately pressed for as many of the trees as possible to be replaced. The officers advised us, not unreasonably, that planting new trees would disrupt the architectural integrity of the scheme that was being proposed; that new trees would not be in keeping with the 'restoration' of a world heritage setting that for its first century had not had any trees at all; and that providing them would cost money that could be spent on other public realm improvements. Nonetheless, we pressed the case for replacement trees because this is what most residents wanted.
Exploratory tree pits were therefore dug - at our insistence - up and down Victoria Road to see where new trees could be introduced. The results were conclusive and - unfortunately from our point of view - negative. Due to the presence of extensive underground cabling and pipes, the only location where new trees can be planted is along one side of the upper part of Victoria Road. Trees require sizeable tree pits in order to enable them to flourish. Moving the cables and pipes, even assuming that alternative routes could be found given the nearby presence of other services beneath the highway, would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and is well beyond the scope of this budget. We were told that moving ONE of the cables alone would cost £113,000 plus VAT. So, again, we reviewed the evidence and settled on a limited number of new replacement street trees as the only possible option.
So, to recap, it seems to me that the Council is responding to several fundamental and unavoidable challenges: the existing 'forest' tree population on Victoria Road was unsustainable in this tight urban setting; 90% of the trees would not have survived in the longer term; we are unable to replant new trees along most of Victoria Road due to the cabling and pipes that run beneath the pavements; it would be too expensive to move the cabling and pipes, even if we could find the space to make it possible to do so; and leaving the trees in situ and removing one of them on average each year for the next 30-40 years would not allow us to create a regenerated public realm in one go, but would instead leave in place the dilapidated street scene, ugly street lighting and cracked and uneven paving that has understandably bothered residents for years.
The bottom line is this. No one at all, neither councillor, officer nor member of the public has been able to offer us a workable solution at any stage over the past two years that would have allowed the Council to keep these huge forest trees on Victoria Road; no alternative viable policy option in any of the meetings, or emails, or phone conversations, or public meetings, or neighbourhood forums, or via the Council website, or tweets, or facebook posts, or on the doorsteps when the local Green councillors have carried out our Saltaire street surgeries, or in the pub, or in response to the Council's consultation (see below). We have never seen a plan that might enable us to rejuvenate and sustain the tree population into the distant future, provide world-class paving and other high quality street furniture and open up the fabulous architectural heritage of this urban setting.
It is also the case that 70% of the people who participated in the Council's consultation held in March and April 2014 wanted all of the existing trees removed. About half of these residents also wanted as many replacement trees as possible to be introduced, which is what we are doing. Less than a quarter of the respondents wanted the existing trees retained. The results, though mixed, were clear enough. Most people, even though they wanted trees, recognised that the existing trees were unsustainable in this particular urban setting.
The consultation process has been criticised in recent days for not being sufficiently extensive or open-ended, so let's be clear about what happened. Council officers carried out a door-to-door survey of all 79 addresses on Victoria Road; the Council also wrote to every resident living in Saltaire advising how they could take part in the consultation; two public drop-in exhibition sessions were held in early April in Saltaire so that residents could study the proposals, ask officers any questions and submit their comments; all of the information was published online and residents were also able to comment electronically if they wished to do so.
My settled view is that the consultation gathered sufficient feedback to enable the officers and the Executive Committee to broadly gauge public opinion and determine what to do next. In particular, the fact that the residents who took part were able to see the plans and ask detailed questions and offer additional suggestions meant that it was a qualitative process as well as a quantitative exercise.
In closing, let me stress that we supported this Executive Committee decision because it was the best one to take in these difficult circumstances. We pushed officers at every stage to justify their recommendations. We pressed for the tree pit surveys and we insisted on new trees being planted in all the locations where this is possible. We also, incidentally, asked for new trees in raised planter beds to be considered, partly as a means of improving traffic and parking management on Victoria Road. This was ruled out, to our disappointment, but it is an idea that we hope to revisit in future.
One final thought. It is my genuine impression that everyone involved in this process from the outset - councillors, officers, consultants - has done their best to ensure that the solution arrived at by Bradford Council is the best we can achieve and has worked hard to listen to the views of local people as well. No one has been more conscientious and considerate in this regard than our World Heritage Site officer. I think it is a good scheme and I look forward to seeing it completed in the months ahead. I'll miss the trees as well, but I honestly think that the Council made the right decision and I hope very much that this will be taken on board by everyone who reads this post.
-----
If you would like to contact the Council for detailed information about any aspect of this project, you can email our World Heritage Site Officer, Helen Thornton, at helen.thornton@bradford.gov.uk.
You can also contact the portfolio holder on the Executive Committee with overall responsibility for the project, Cllr Val Slater, at val.slater@bradford.gov.uk.
I would strongly encourage residents to attend the Saltaire World Heritage Site Information Session at Saltaire Methodist Church, Wednesday 25 February, 7-9pm. All details here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/bmdc/community_and_living/neighbourhoods/neighbourhood_forums_events/Saltaire_WHS_250215
Best,
Kevin Warnes (Shipley, 14 February 2015)
@kevinwarnes
----
All of the Council information relating to this project can be found here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/bmdc/the_environment/conservation_and_design/victoria_road_saltaire
The Scheme Drawing can be found here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B112E549-54DE-4203-8C8F-9B87E0DD8EF5/0/VictoriaRoadSaltaireSchemeDrawing.pdf
The independent tree survey can be found here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/158EFFA8-375B-4D4D-8CAD-6281FC8A22D7/0/INDEPENDENTTREESURVEYVictoriaRoadSaltaire.pdf
The summary report of the public consultation held in March 2014 can be found here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F113C9CE-AE6D-4873-9D83-77F871B49101/0/VictoriaRoadSchemeConsultationResultsSummaryReport.pdf
The Consultation Document can be found here: http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/6423558D-8C29-4AA0-A95B-45227A7B37FE/0/VICTORIAROADCONSULTATIONDOCUMENT.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)