I got accused of a number of things at the last Kirklees Council meeting by Labour Cabinet members including "politicking" "spinning"and "making up my own facts". I found this particularly annoying as all I did was quote the facts provided by other independent and professional people with no political axe to grind . Facts that the Labour Administration of Kirklees found inconvenient to say the least
I raised the issue of Kirklees Council's plans to remove over a 100 mature trees as part of their road widening plans on the A629 at Edgerton. Since the previous Full Council meeting a number of inconvenient facts had emerged that didn't fit their narrative. The first of these was the response to the Planning Application of the widening scheme from the Council's own Tree Officer. He gave a number of facts in his submission. These were:-
In the report
it says,
“There appear
to be several errors and points of confusion in the document.”
It goes on to
say
“This document
does not provide underlying evidence to validate its claims and the underlying
data does not appear to have been published. Without such data it is almost
impossible for the reader to have meaningful engagement with the assessment.”
In detailed
criticism the report cites serious defects in the report
“The accurate
quantification of emissions must be questioned when over 8000 of the
approximately 8900 HGV movements described are effectively ignored by assuming
that the majority of the construction waste will remain on the site”
“Where does
this material go and how much Greenhouse gas is not accounted for if removed?
Each of those waste materials stored on-site will need removing at some point.”
The report goes
on to cast doubt on the accuracy of the measurements made in the Council
report.
“If all of the
document has had the CO2 divided by 3.67, then the whole of the emissions
reported in the document could be significantly out by a factor of
approximately two thirds.”
“In summary the
report says without an appraisal detailing the whole life benefits or
dis-benefits of this scheme; and without having a Kirklees wide road map in
place setting out year on year emissions savings required across the KRN, it’s
impossible to state whether any benefits predicted as part of the A629 will
support Kirklees in meeting its objective”
And the highly respected Woodland Trust said in it's submission to the Planning Application
"should not be taken forward on the grounds it does not comply with national planning policy".
Whilst the council has pledged to plan more than 700 new trees to compensate for the loss of those being chopped down, the trust says the offer is not sufficient.
"New planting simply cannot replace the value lost when mature trees are removed, and such planting can never replace the loss of ancient and veteran trees.
"This large-scale loss of trees from a council scheme is simply inappropriate and alternative solutions must be found to prevent the loss of these trees."
It also considers the plan to be "not consistent" with the council’s own policy within its Local Plan.
These are not my "made up facts" but the views of respected organisations and professionals.
The A629 Widening scheme has a serious credibility problem and at present Labour appear to be doubling down in their backing for the scheme but they risk blowing their claims to having any legitimacy to be a leading 'green' Council. They may make the mistake of believing that this is between me and them. It isn't. They risk alienating the large community of informed environmental organisations in Kirklees who are their real critics. Critical friends should be valued and their evidence not dismissed and negated.
So what next? There are all sorts of ways of addressing an issue like this. If I am cast as an opponent as opposed to the critical friend that I regard myself as, then I'll just have to reconsider how to affect change. I have some ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment