Hospital Parking Fees - end them NOW.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

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.

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:

• Comment online via the planning portal at www.bradford.gov.uk/planning
• Write to Martyn Burke, the Council’s planning officer (post to Planning Office, Bradford Council, 2^nd Floor South, Jacob’s Well, Bradford, BD1 5RW)
• Email Martyn Burke at martyn.burke@bradford.gov.uk
• 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.