The Falkirk 20 minute neighbourhood plans (with links)
There is, to say the least, a lot of information here! If you don’t read it all, you don’t know it all, and I haven’t included it all!
In summary, going on what we know so far, there is cause for concern only at this point. Key areas are in RED.
I have asked some very probing and specific questions. Lets see if they get a response.
(Silence is speaking volumes!)
I need as many people as possible to support our work against this implementation.
Please click on the Link to sign the petition https://chng.it/GxmPD4kc
You should also look at the BBC panorama programme on 15 minute cities.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001krql/panorama-road-wars-neighbourhood-traffic-chaos
I took a small clip of part of this that can be seen on the Nextdoor app here:
https://nextdoor.co.uk/p/SFPsbhqjxtRt?utm_source=share&extras=MTc1OTIxOTk1MzUwOTI%3D
As much as I disagree with the SNP on a lot of issues. Thanks go out to Cllr Jim Robertson for the engagement on this issue shown thus far.
01/06/2023 UPDATE, unfortunately this didn’t last!
Moving from this, to the image below.
Were are the people who park outside their property on the street meant to park?
Same again with the parking issues
Car club? Is this for people who no longer own cars?
This clearly indicates in my mind that all major traffic routes will be effected.
One image of Falkirk 20 minute neighbourhood splits.
The first thing to look at is the Active Travel Strategy that can be found here: https://www.falkirk.gov.uk/coins/viewDoc.asp?c=e%97%9Dc%91k%7B%8D
If clicking the link doesn’t work. Copy and paste into the website address bar. then it works!
https://www.falkirk.gov.uk/coins/submissiondocuments.asp?submissionid=20290
Look at part 2 as shown in the images above:
This link is the Council meeting discussion of the above. A rather concerning part of this meeting is from 1:25:50 to 1:26:30
Stating things such as “Looking at mobility as a service, and how people can access not having permanent use of a car, but irregular use of a car for a number of hours a day”
Executive 11 April 2023 - YouTube
This is a link to the short 2 minute video:
(238) Tell Us About Your Place | Local Development Plan 3 - YouTube
Mentions 20 minute neighbourhoods at 1:12.
The latest news letter can be found here.
Development Plan Update March 2023 (falkirk.gov.uk)
Although inviting local community councils to be involved in local planning, it points out that they are “not obligated to incorporate them”
What is a development plan:
Development Plan Scheme 2023 (falkirk.gov.uk)
This just points out the planning is no longer under the full control of the council and is an extension of planning timeframes from 5 to 10 years.
This puts a very positive spin on the plans.
Tell Us About Your Place – Falkirk Local Development Plan 3 - Falkirk Council - Citizen Space
However, I don’t think it asks the relevant questions needed or is upfront and honest about any possible issues that come with the plans.
So what have you done about this so far I hear you ask!
Well a number of emails to ask the vital questions. Please see below:
From: Mark Tunnicliff <MTunnicliff@outlook.com>
Sent: 10 April 2023 21:10
To: eve.mcwilliams@falkirk.gov.uk, ldp@falkirk.gov.uk, malcolm.bennie@falkirk.gov.uk, claire.mackiebrown@falkirk.gov.uk, jim.robertson@falkirk.gov.uk, siobhan.paterson@falkirk.gov.uk, Martyn Day <martyn.day.mp@parliament.uk>, Thomson M (Michelle), MSP <Michelle.Thomson.MSP@Parliament.scot>
Subject: Falkirk Active/Local Transport Strategy 2023
To whom it may concern,
I would like to get responses from as many people as possible on this.
Please send me as much detail as possible on the LTS 23 (Local Transport Strategy 2023)
Having just read the Strategic Environmental Assessment Screening Report, including the LTS Screening and on the back of the meeting going ahead tomorrow.
I wanted to draw attention to the long-term impact and effect on the local communities in Falkirk, the approval of these will have over the next ten years.
I have multiple concerns about the direction of travel with this strategy for the following reasons:
Statements such as “The policy direction of the LTS encourages the reduction in the use of private cars”
This is not something I believe the people of Falkirk want. The lack of engagement in political activity and direction shown by the public cannot, and should not, be used as a green light for such policies.
My questions against reason 1 are:
1.1 Will this at anytime in the future involve limited car journeys?
1.2 Will this at any point mean imposing fines for people using their cars as they currently do today?
1.3 Will this mean at any point, a reduction in the road transport network and capacity in Falkirk?This along with other documents such as the Local Development Plan 3, (including the video) mention “20-minute neighbourhoods”
It is clear that a lot of councils have signed-up to 15 minute neighbourhoods and the implication and impacts of such is only drawing negative responses.
My questions against reason 2 are:
2.1 Are you planning on Falkirk becoming 20 minute neighbourhoods?
2.2 What are the costs of this likely to be?
The Active Travel Strategy, Appendix 2, page 12 and 13 shows the removal of on street parking.
It states: “We need to move from thinking about roads being primarily designed for the movement and storage of private cars and vans to thinking about streets as primarily designed for people. This means we will have to reallocate space from the carriageway, including on-street parking, for other users, to make our streets work better for everyone.”
3.1 Where do you expect the vehicles such as on Maddistons Main Road, B805, to park once these plans are in place?The concentration from all forms of government is on lowering carbon emissions. Again, this is clear in the literature you have sent out.
However, I do wonder if anyone actually knows what they are talking about when it comes to carbon emissions.
Please do take the time to look all this information up independently, as it is clearly of vital importance when considering such drastic changes in our way of life with regards to transportation and movement.
0.041% of the atmosphere is made up of CO2. This is 410 parts per million.
The worst-case scenario is a worldwide increase of 2.44 parts per million each year.
The whole UK territories account for up to 1% of this world wide increase each year.
This means, at worst, we add 0.00000244% CO2 each year.
With China and other nations currently building more coal power stations, is it possible the reduction in CO2 isn’t something significant enough to change the way we live and move around?
There are much better ways to become Carbon neutral!
And even if the UK meets and exceeds its targets, this isn’t a world wide answer or solution!
In Summary
I am sure it is clear by now I do a lot of reading and know of what I speak.
A meeting will take place tomorrow at 10:00hrs to approve this as per agenda item 7.
The recent chaos created in Oxford where one of the UK 15 minute neighbourhoods is being trialled is not something I think Falkirk residents want.
I would ask anyone in government including councillors to really consider the impact of this, and what it might mean for the future.
I would like all elected Government officials to respond.
Kind Regards
Mark Tunnicliff
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Maddistion
Falkirk
FK2 0BH
Ward 9, Upper Braes
We have had some responses! Ill let you be the judge of the quality.
From: Eve McWilliams <Eve.McWilliams@falkirk.gov.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 3:46 PM
To: Mark Tunnicliff <MTunnicliff@outlook.com>
Subject: RE: Falkirk Active/Local Transport Strategy 2023
Good afternoon,
See below responses to each question you have asked:
The point of the strategy is to encourage active and sustainable travel choices, rather than limit car journeys. This encouragement will have a positive effect in reducing car kilometres across the local area.
We do not plan to introduce any fines for people using cars.
There will be no reduction in the road transport network and capacity. However, the road network will be subject to review to better accommodate more modes of transport such as walking, wheeling, cycling, and public transport.
2.1 As part of both strategies, we are encouraging active and sustainable travel to local services and key district centres. This will result in 20-minute neighbourhoods where residents are better connected by active and sustainable means.
2.2 Both strategies are a long-term plan and costs will be defined as projects develop. Currently, we do not have exact costs for these strategies.
3.1 Currently, there are no specific plans for reallocating road space on Maddiston Main Road at the present time.
4.1 With regards to carbon emissions, both strategies are informed by the Scottish Government Climate Change Plan. Follow the link below for more information on this plan:
As a Council, we’re obliged to follow national government guidance.
Thank you for raising your concerns and if there are any other questions please get in touch.
Kind regards,
Eve McWilliams
I responded to this including a good number of concerned local residents.
Hello all,
This is the quick and appreciated response I have received today.
I have also attached a lot of the information from the council website. Happy reading!
Very cleverly written in typical political format as I think it dances around the issues to make it look more attractive.
The response makes out like this will be a carrot only situation (IE no stick/force). It has been literally stated that the aim is to reduce car journeys by 20%. I do not see encouragement alone achieving this. (I could obviously be wrong)
At this stage, the response can be accepted as is. However, it should bee noted to keep a keen eye on this. And I will!
I should have been more specific in asking about a reduction in car or van capacity. From the documents attached, you will clearly see this is an aim. However, the overall capacity would increase. You can fit more people on a road walking or on bikes.
2.1 The plan is definitely 20 minute neighbourhoods. This is concerning as in other areas where this is happening, roads being limited do result in fines.
Please see following for reading:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-madness-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods/ £65 fine in London for turning down a road used 100s of times before the introduction.
https://news.oxfordshire.gov.uk/joint-statement-from-oxfordshire-county-council-and-oxford-city-council-on-oxfords-traffic-filters/ Statement from Oxford council. This includes statements such as:
“If a vehicle passes through the filter at certain times of the day, the camera will read the number plate and (if you do not have an exemption or a residents’ permit) you will receive a fine in the post.”
“Oxford residents (and residents of some surrounding villages) will be able to apply for a permit to drive through the filters on up to 100 days a year. Residents living in the rest of Oxfordshire will be able to apply for a permit to drive through the filter on up to 25 days a year.”
“In the future, during certain times of the day, you may need to take a different route (e.g. using the ring road) if you want to travel by car.” (How is this environmentally friendly??)
“Will Oxfordshire residents need permission from the councils to travel across the city? No. Everyone can go through all the filters at any time by bus, bike, taxi, scooter or walking. NOT Personal CAR!!!
Once again this is written in a clever way that tries to be open and honest while at the same time, dispel myths or information found on the internet.
Even in this report they admit that from the people surveyed, 1% more disagreed with the proposal than agreed 7% to 8% respectively. They still pressed ahead. Unfortunately, lack of public engagement isn’t helping politics at present, but who could blame them?
2.2 So, the cash strapped Falkirk council have agreed they are happy with the strategy without any indication on how much it is going to cost. Interesting… Not sure it is something I would be comfortable with.
3.1 This is an odd one as the road I mentioned, the B805 is part of the secondary network. However, even if this is not included, what is included and where do they expect these vehicles to go? Didn’t really answer the question.
4.1 With an SNP/Green government alliance it is typical to get this sort of legislation. It may even suggest that the majority of people want this. However, anyone that takes the time to look will see this is simply not the case.
The link provided as an answer does have comments included such as “ Cars currently account for almost 40% of transport emissions[65], therefore, the predominance of car use cannot be overlooked”
However, I would argue that there are other, better ways to achieve NET ZERO (This doesn’t even have to include lowering vehicle emissions!)
In summary
I could go on with a lot more information and I would encourage anyone to read about this as much as possible. I am sure anyone reading this would understand my concerns.
My understanding is the council may have interpreted the legislation in the way it is meant to be interpreted. But clear communication on what the council are doing need to be distributed a lot better!!
I for one do not want my tax money being spent on this type of nonsense. Why not spend it on weight energy storage to bring down people’s electric bills? Scotland could be run on 100% renewable electricity this way!
Do a good job of it, we could even export (If we don’t sell the rights to offshore windfarms to French owned companies. (EDF energy. Thanks again SNP!!))
Do feel free to contact me with regards to this and I look forwards to engaging with a lot more of the public in the future.
Also, please feel free to distribute this to others.
I need no further response from the council at this point and thank some of the elected officials for already getting back to me.
Any elected official who hasn’t thus or far wants to know more, is welcome to engage with me further.
This is the meeting that happened today. Watch from 1:25:50 to 1:26:30 to get a taste of what the agender here is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZi2hEOAO4g&t=5181s
Kind Regards
Mark Tunnicliff
I did also get a response from our MSP. My response to that also follows:
From: Michelle Thomson MSP <michelle.thomson.msp@parliament.scot>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 10:42 AM
To: MTunnicliff@outlook.com
Subject: MSP Enquiry (Case Ref: MT1880)
Good morning Mr Tunnicliff,
Thank you for your email outlining your comments and concerns regarding Falkirk Council’s Local Transport and Active Travel Strategy 2023.
While I understand that you have concerns regarding this strategy, the most appropriate person to take these concerns forward on your behalf would be a locally elected councillor. I can also see that you have copied in those elected to represent the Upper Braes at Falkirk Council.
As an MSP, I cannot directly influence the decisions taken by Falkirk Council. I can however ask questions and request detail on the rationale behind proposals and any subsequent decisions made. I would note however that this policy was presented to Falkirk Council’s Executive on Tuesday and passed unanimously after a variety of questions were put by councillors. If you have not already done so, you may wish to watch the proceedings back, which you can access here. In addition to the responses you have already received from Falkirk Council officers directly, this may give some further insight into the rational and detail behind the strategy.
I hope this assists with answering your enquiry and trust your councillors will respond to your correspondence in due course.
Kind regards,
Michelle Thomson MSP
SNP - Member of the Scottish Parliament for Falkirk East
From: Mark Tunnicliff
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 9:55 PM
To: Michelle Thomson MSP <michelle.thomson.msp@parliament.scot>
Cc: gordon.forrest@falkirk.gov.uk; bryan.deakin@falkirk.gov.uk; Jim Robertson <Jim.Robertson@falkirk.gov.uk>; Siobhan Paterson <Siobhan.Paterson@falkirk.gov.uk>; claire.mackiebrown@falkirk.gov.uk; Martyn Day <martyn.day.mp@parliament.uk>; Eve McWilliams <Eve.McWilliams@falkirk.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: MSP Enquiry (Case Ref: MT1880) Falkirk Active/Local Transport Strategy 2023
Hello Michelle,
Thank you for the quick response!
The rational for this was clear in the response from Falkirk council, that stated as follows:
4.1 With regards to carbon emissions, both strategies are informed by the Scottish Government Climate Change Plan. Follow the link below for more information on this plan:
I have also added the response and my counter response in the email below.
The above would be the primary reason for coming to you. I actually believe the council have interpreted this right, but feel this is a major issue that I don’t want to see Falkirk Council waste money on.
Especially in the current economic climate!
Even if a lot, almost all in fact, of councils are looking at similar strategies.
I do not believe this is what the people of Falkirk/Scotland or the UK for that matter want.
Especially when looking at similar schemes in place in Oxford and London and the reaction from the public.
Clearly time will tell, but it is my intention to make sure everyone in Falkirk knows and understands these plans.
I have this afternoon spoken with Gordon Forrest who came to a council surgery on behalf of Jim Robertson.
Unfortunately, although admitting there would have to be a carrot and stick approach to implementing these policies, he believes that the road tax we already pay now would be the stick used to enforce these rules.
(After stating Road tax wouldn’t go up further, but that tax on low polluting cars (New, expensive ones!) would be cheaper)
Not sure how a reasonable and logical person can come to the conclusion this is a stick for implementation and not actually a carrot! Or even nothing to do with implementation at all.
My fear is it will end up in fines, people will vandalise enforcement infrastructure (at high cost!) and it will be unworkable.
A video of such can be found here. Unfortunately, I could point to many more!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqkf89oUkyA
Clearly this criminal behaviour is un-acceptable, but it is still an understandable reaction. Not that this is being broadcasted by mainstream media.
It is very clear from the plans and documents attached that the intention is to reduce road movement and parking capacity in Falkirk for privately owned cars in place of infrastructure for other modes of transport.
I would like you and the council to reassure us of just the three following points: (or as many as possible)
No fines will be implemented as part of any of the 20 minute neighbourhoods implementation in Falkirk. At this point or at any other in the next ten years covering the full strategy timeline.
You will not reduce road capacity or freedom of movement for private vehicles, including parking and restrictions on travel amounts. (plans say otherwise!)
The cost of the implementation will not be prioritised over people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis.
(IE, nobody, especially vulnerable families, will be struggling with the cost of living in Falkirk before any further money is spent on this. My belief is this is basic prioritisation of public money.)
For clarity, please be as specific in the responses as possible. This will also prevent further questions.
My plan is to now make sure as many people are aware of these plans in Falkirk as possible. Something I feel the council should already be doing a lot better.
I would be happy to meet with anyone in person or over Teams about this.
As public servants and in the public interest, I would expect you to allow any details of any interaction to be recorded and made public.
I will take this as a given unless instructed otherwise.
Thank you for our time and understanding of the concerns I have raised, and I look forwards to further responses.
Kind Regards
Mark Tunnicliff
Copied in Martyn Day for info only.
(If I had won the vote, I would want to know)
Still maintaining the pressure for a response and to make sure none of the people involved can deny the questions posed. I have just sent the following.
From: MTunnicliff@outlook.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 9:59 PM
To: 'Michelle Thomson MSP' <michelle.thomson.msp@parliament.scot>; 'gordon.forrest@falkirk.gov.uk' <gordon.forrest@falkirk.gov.uk>; 'bryan.deakin@falkirk.gov.uk' <bryan.deakin@falkirk.gov.uk>; 'Jim Robertson' <Jim.Robertson@falkirk.gov.uk>; 'Siobhan Paterson' <Siobhan.Paterson@falkirk.gov.uk>; 'claire.mackiebrown@falkirk.gov.uk' <claire.mackiebrown@falkirk.gov.uk>; 'Martyn Day' <martyn.day.mp@parliament.uk>; 'Eve McWilliams' <Eve.McWilliams@falkirk.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: MSP Enquiry (Case Ref: MT1880) Falkirk Active/Local Transport Strategy 2023
Hello all,
It has been some time since this email and I would appreciate any response.
Just to reiterate, the reassurance I am currently looking for are the three following points: (or as many as possible)
No fines will be implemented as part of any of the 20 minute neighbourhoods implementation in Falkirk. At this point or at any other in the next ten years covering the full strategy timeline.
You will not reduce road capacity or freedom of movement for private vehicles, including parking and restrictions on travel amounts. (plans say otherwise!)
The cost of the implementation will not be prioritised over people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis.
(IE, nobody, especially vulnerable families, will be struggling with the cost of living in Falkirk before any further money is spent on this. My belief is this is basic prioritisation of public money.)
Thanks to the small number of you who have responded to say you will seek out the information.
I am eagerly awaiting your responses.
Kind Regards
Mark Tunnicliff
05/05/2023 Today I visited Councillor Siobhan Paterson. I like Siobhan and think she really understands the concerns. I informed her of my intentions and the vast amount of evidence I have. I hope she helps make the difference after fully appreciating the issues this will bring if implemented.
10/05/2023 Today I spoke with Councillor Claire Mackie-Brown via Teams. Claire again understands the concerns. I again informed her of my intentions and the vast amount of evidence I have. I think we both agree that the communications and information coming out of Falkirk council is currently lacking. A prime example of this was the lack of communications about brown bin collections in the area. I know the Falkirk Herold did an article on the specifically around the complaints received by Claire from constituents.
I have today 14/05/2023 sent this to the 3 Upper Breas Councillors. Please do find and sign the petition.
Hello Jim, Siobhan and Claire,
As my local councillors, I just want to keep you all updated.
I have started a petition that I would like you all to sign: https://chng.it/RhFyfLQkTC Halt the 20 minute neighbourhood Strategy in Falkirk
And the attached will be distributed at the end of the month starting with the residents it will affect the most.
I don’t have to tell you this will hopefully be a wake-up call to residents, and I expect a lot of councillors will be contact about this moving forwards.
Please do tell me your personal feelings about this strategy as I understand you might not always agree with your political party on such issues.
Please do keep me updated on progress as it is all being published.
I have attended surgeries from all of you and am always open to further meeting if required.
Kind Regards
Mark Tunnicliff
The petition says:
We call for a halt to the strategy pending further investigations from the local population and for the Falkirk Council to actively and properly inform local residents before, or even if, the strategy is re-approved.
Serious questions should have been addressed prior to this strategy being approved. Such as; where will people park cars after the parking is removed?
Other fears include implementation of fines, reductions on travel access, limitations on travel amount (in time), ULEZ implementation and many more. The Council has a responsibility to inform and allay any fears people have, before such a huge change to the local travel network is implemented.
It is our opinion that:
1. The car should remain a choice to be the primary mode of transport for the residents of Falkirk.
2. That any strategy for any reductions, include a viable alternative mode of transport.
3. All questions are answered fully and to the satisfaction of Falkirk residents before approval.
4. Guarantees should be made with regards to:
a. Parking (That nobody will be at any disadvantage in comparison to now)
b. Access (That any local business or resident will receive free permits to access areas if required)
c. Implementation (Will not affect anyone negatively long term or include vehicle camara systems)
d. No Cost from Council tax (That the cost (when bin collections are not affordable) will not fall to us)
e. Fines (No fines will be implemented for any resident of Falkirk to drive)
f. Capacity (That no loss of car transport capacity in Falkirk results from implementation)
g. Time (No car route will take longer than it does now)
With a cost of living crisis, food on tables (food banks), energy cost and anyone in Falkirk struggling should be prioritised over any cost associated with 20 minute neighbourhoods implementation.
The Local Transport and Active Travel Strategies are focused on a transport network which prioritises active and sustainable transport over a network which prioritises the car; and
Adopts an approach to developing the active travel network which prioritises and creates space for walking and cycling over other modes of transport.
The primary question is; do the Falkirk residents want this?
15/05/2023 Today I got a response to the above from Councillor Claire Mackie-Brown and from Falkirk MSP Michelle Thomson. The SNP MSP response came in the form of a letter from The Scottish Transport minister Kevin Stewart as shown below.
From this we can establish one fact. The aim is to reduce everyone’s vehicle use by 20%. (for now!)
I disagree with the minister on a number of points here including:
1. They have already developed and approved the strategy. (As documented above. Clearly, he spent a lot of time looking into this!)
2. Climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing Scotland. (Unfortunately we have no control over places such as China who are still building coal power stations.)
3. Reducing car use and switching to cleaner vehicles is pivotal. (It most certainly is not!! There are much better ways to get to net zero, if that is even needed!)
4. Does not plan to implement 15 minute cities. (Same thing, different name. Even stating “urban design concept/on foot or bike. “ This pretty much describes the Strategy we are against.)
5. Local communities to be involved. (Most people don’t even know about it, let alone had involvement)
6. If, as he says “20 MN do not stop people moving around nor place any limits on where people may travel” (How do they expect to meet the 20% reduction?)
So I asked 3 questions.
1. No fines will be implemented as part of any of the 20 minute neighbourhoods implementation in Falkirk. At this point or at any other in the next ten years covering the full strategy timeline.
2. You will not reduce road capacity or freedom of movement for private vehicles, including parking and restrictions on travel amounts. (plans say otherwise!)
3. The cost of the implementation will not be prioritised over people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis.
(IE, nobody, especially vulnerable families, will be struggling with the cost of living in Falkirk before any further money is spent on this. My belief is this is basic prioritisation of public money.)
None of them have been answered!
I have written the following response to seek further clarifications. This went out to my local councillors, Falkirk Council reps and our Falkirk MSP to whom it is addressed.
Thank you for this Michelle,
I have taken some time to consider my response and read all the literature I could find.
Main link provided here: https://www.gov.scot/publications/local-living-20-minute-neighbourhoods-planning-guidance/pages/1/
It is clear that one of the main 20-minute neighbourhoods aims is to reduce CO2 emissions and make a “positive impact on climate change.”
Unfortunately, the response didn’t answer any of the specific questions.
1. No fines will be implemented as part of any of the 20-minute neighbourhoods implementation in Falkirk. At this point or at any other in the next ten years covering the full strategy timeline.
2. You will not reduce road capacity or freedom of movement for private vehicles, including parking and restrictions on travel amounts. (plans say otherwise!)
3. The cost of the implementation will not be prioritised over people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis.
(IE, nobody, especially vulnerable families, will be struggling with the cost of living in Falkirk before any further money is spent on this. My belief is this is basic prioritisation of public money.)
To that end, can anyone answer the above questions ?
I have asked a further five overarching questions below and I expect the Scottish government should be able to answer these questions with no problem.
4. In your letter it states, “Local Authorities are encouraged to develop their own local active travel strategies”. Is it your belief this isn’t a requirement?
5. Please confirm the Scottish government will be spending £500 million on implementation of 20-minute neighbourhoods?
(Link: https://www.gov.scot/news/protecting-scotlands-future/)
6. When implemented across Scotland, what global temperature reduction per year or overall will be the result of this spend?
7 The route map states the reduction to 2030 (link below) However, in your letter it seems to suggest further reductions may be required in the future. Plan to reach net zero by 2045.
What are, if any, the plans for transport after 2030 to meet your 2045 targets? (The link below doesn’t say)
https://digitalpublications.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefings/Report/2021/1/12/109b01e8-6212-11ea-8c12-000d3a23af40#:~:text=The%20Scottish%20Government's%20draft%20update,net%2Dzero%20emissions%20by%202045.
8. On a final note I would like to know the scientific reports and authors this information is based on?
Please ask yourself this; remembering the following three points, is it possible these “scientists” are wrong and have you even considered alternative scientific opinions?
1. In 1978, the “scientists” predicted the next ice age. (Just see first 60 seconds of the link below presented by Leonard Nimoy)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tAYXQPWdC0
2. The ice caps have increased in size over the past 10 years.
3. Go back far enough, (130,000 years) the temperature in this location was up to 5 degrees warmer on average. Humans in that time lived with no issues.
As per normal, I could go on and on.
I have no need for a full letter response.
A simple email with the answers will be great and much appreciated.
Kind Regards
Mark Tunnicliff
31/05/23 I got a response from Councillor Claire Mackie-Brown via email asking if I have had any further response from anyone else. Unfortunately, I had to inform her the answer was no.
01/06/23 As promised, I started knocking on doors today to make sure people were aware of this approved strategy. The response on the doors was one of shock and disbelief. Its a good job I printed the strategy and have handouts, including business cards for people to look at. All the information in one big folder.
On the back of this, I also sent the following email as the Strategy is still difficult to find on the Falkirk website.
From: Mark Tunnicliff
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 8:51 PM
To: 'Michelle Thomson MSP' <michelle.thomson.msp@parliament.scot>; 'Jim Robertson' <Jim.Robertson@falkirk.gov.uk>; 'Siobhan Paterson' <Siobhan.Paterson@falkirk.gov.uk>; 'claire.mackiebrown@falkirk.gov.uk' <claire.mackiebrown@falkirk.gov.uk>; 'bryan.deakin@falkirk.gov.uk' <bryan.deakin@falkirk.gov.uk>; 'Eve McWilliams' <Eve.McWilliams@falkirk.gov.uk>; 'transportplanning@falkirk.gov.uk' <transportplanning@falkirk.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: MSP Enquiry (Case Ref: MT1880) 20 MN Falkirk
Hello all,
Having had no good response yet to any of the questions posed, I have printed the strategy and am now showing it to people door to door.
If you could send a response to the questions directly, that would be much appreciated.
However, My primary ask is that you make the Active Travel Strategy (Copy attached) more accessible on the Falkirk website.
It should clearly be here : https://www.falkirk.gov.uk/services/roads-parking-transport/policies-strategies/transport-policy.aspx.
Unfortunately, the only documents currently here are the Road Safety plan, The SEA Screening report and LTS screening report.
It does make me wonder why such an important approved strategy is so difficult to find on your website.
Having had a good reception on the doors so far, I find it detestable that people are still simply not aware.
You have a duty of care to provide this information to Falkirk Residents and are clearly and obviously failing.
All this information and prior information is being published on my website here: https://www.divergentparty.com/falkirk-20-minute-neighbourhoods/the-plans
I have now spent a lot of time, money and effort on this, and it will not just go away.
Individual responses would be much appreciated.
Kind Regards
Mark Tunnicliff
02/06/23 I got the following message from Christopher at the council. I have followed up twice now but am not very accessible for the next 2 weeks. I do Hope Chris will respond again at some point. However, being a civil servant, I am not sure how much he is able to help. Civil servants must do as they are instructed by the politicians.
From: Christopher Cox <christopher.cox@falkirk.gov.uk>
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2023 10:15:21 AM
To: Mtunnicliff@outlook.com <Mtunnicliff@outlook.com>
Subject: Local Transport Strategy (ref: 89572)
Dear Mr Tunnicliff
Local Transport Strategy (ref: 89572)
Thank you for your recent enquiry about Falkirk Council’s recently adopted Local Transport and Active Travel Strategies.
I’ve be happy to have a discussion with you about your concerns, either via Microsoft Teams or by telephone, please can you left me know if this is something you would like to do, and, if so, when would be convenient for you.
Regards
Chris
Chris Cox BA CMILT, Transport Planning Manager, Place Services, Falkirk Council
Location: Abbotsford House, Davids Loan, Falkirk, FK2 7YZ (currently closed – working from home)
Email: christopher.cox@falkirk.gov.uk
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
From: Mark Tunnicliff <MTunnicliff@outlook.com>
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2023 11:18 AM
To: Christopher Cox <christopher.cox@falkirk.gov.uk>
Subject: Re: Local Transport Strategy (ref: 89572)
Hello Christopher,
I would be very grateful to have a conversation with you about this.
Unfortunately, I only have after 15:00 today during normal working hours over the next couple of weeks unless things change.
Free all the time outside of normal working hours if this works for you.
My Teams email is: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
You can also reach me on 07841657637.
Please do check the website link to fully understand my concerns and I look forward to hearing from you.
https://www.divergentparty.com/falkirk-20-minute-neighbourhoods/the-plans
Kind regards
Mark Tunnicliff
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————--
From: Mark Tunnicliff
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 9:31 PM
To: Christopher Cox <christopher.cox@falkirk.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: Local Transport Strategy (ref: 89572)
Hello Christopher,
If you can assist with any of my request to make this strategy more transparent (As it is in the public interest) or answer any of the questions I have posed, that would be much appreciated.
The silence I am getting from local politicians (apart from our MSP) and Falkirk council is nothing short of an outrage.
I will also be available for a short call tomorrow if that helps.
Kind Regards
Mark Tunnicliff
02/06/23 I also got the following response to my email sent 01/06/23 from our MSP as follows. To be fair, this is the only politician actually seemingly trying to make progress.
From: Michelle Thomson MSP <michelle.thomson.msp@parliament.scot>
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2023 12:44 PM
To: MTunnicliff@outlook.com
Subject: MSP Enquiry (Case Ref: MT1880)
Good afternoon Mr Tunnicliff,
Thank you for providing your consideration of the response you received from the Scottish Government.
I have put these points to the Minister and asked for their response to these. When I have this response, as before that will be issued to yourself for your consideration.
Kind regards,
Michelle Thomson MSP
SNP - Member of the Scottish Parliament for Falkirk East
29/06/23 I got the following response via our MSP from Fiona Hyslop as shown below. I took some time to look into it and I think my response below that, says it all.
From: Mark Tunnicliff
Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2023 9:48 PM
To: Michelle Thomson MSP <michelle.thomson.msp@parliament.scot>
Cc: gordon.forrest@falkirk.gov.uk; bryan.deakin@falkirk.gov.uk; Jim Robertson <Jim.Robertson@falkirk.gov.uk>; Siobhan Paterson <Siobhan.Paterson@falkirk.gov.uk>; claire.mackiebrown@falkirk.gov.uk; Martyn Day <martyn.day.mp@parliament.uk>; Eve McWilliams <Eve.McWilliams@falkirk.gov.uk>; jill.buchanan@jpimedia.co.uk; fiona.dobie@jpimedia.co.uk; james.trimble@jpimedia.co.uk; ben.kearney@jpimedia.co.uk; michael.gillen@jpimedia.co.uk
Subject: RE: MSP Enquiry (Case Ref: MT1880)
Thank you Michelle,
Can I ask if you have read this response and if you think it answers any of the questions posed?
I know politicians are famous for not answering questions, but quite frankly, this response is utterly ridiculous!
It seems to me, that putting us at ease about the move in the direction towards 20 minute neighbourhoods could be very easy.
Yet, the government, minsters or civil service have now failed twice to answer what seem to me very simple and important questions, with genuine concerns from a well-informed constituent.
It really does come down to a different question now; Why would the ministers not answer any of these questions directly in a simple yes or no?
Even with a caveat.
As a result of the lack of response, the only conclusion I can come to is that the answers would frighten the public and look extremely bad for the government.
For your information I would like to inform you what I am currently doing.
We have started a petition and a growing group of us, including very concerned business owners have had our first meeting.
The petition is currently sitting at only 134, but growing day by day.
The strategy document from the council is being distributed door to door and we have a website specific to all these communications, links and information up and running for everyone to see.
I will for the last time, request that the government actually respond with simple direct answers to the questions below.
Silance speaks volumes and a response that says nothing is silent and pointless.
1. No fines will be implemented as part of any of the 20-minute neighbourhoods implementation in Falkirk. At this point or at any other in the next ten years covering the full strategy timeline.
2. You will not reduce road capacity or freedom of movement for private vehicles, including parking and restrictions on travel amounts. (plans say otherwise!)
3. The cost of the implementation will not be prioritised over people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis.
(IE, nobody, especially vulnerable families, will be struggling with the cost of living in Falkirk before any further money is spent on this. My belief is this is basic prioritisation of public money.)
4. In your letter it states, “Local Authorities are encouraged to develop their own local active travel strategies”. Is it your belief this isn’t a requirement?
5. Please confirm what the Scottish government will be spending on all areas of implementation of 20-minute neighbourhoods?
6. When implemented across Scotland, what global temperature reduction per year or overall will be the result of this spend?
7 The route map states the reduction to 2030. However, in your first letter it seems to suggest further reductions may be required in the future. Plan to reach net zero by 2045.
What are, if any, the plans for transport after 2030 to meet your 2045 targets?
Regards
Mark Tunnicliff
Both letters attached so everyone CCd can see the (lack of) government response.
From: Michelle Thomson MSP <michelle.thomson.msp@parliament.scot>
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 3:18 PM
To: MTunnicliff@outlook.com
Subject: MSP Enquiry (Case Ref: MT1880)
Good afternoon Mr Tunnicliff,
I can confirm I have passed on your further correspondence to the Minister for Transport at the Scottish Government as requested. When a further response is forthcoming to your latest enquiry, I will forward this to yourself for your consideration.
As per the previous response you received from the Scottish Government, I would encourage you to put forward your views to the their ‘Local living and 20 minute-neighbourhoods’ consultation by following this link, https://www.gov.scot/publications/local-living-20-minute-neighbourhoods-planning-guidance/pages/1/. This consultation closes on 20th July and is the most appropriate way for you to ensure your perspective on this matter is taken into account when informing future planning.
I understand there is currently no dedicated budget provision from the Scottish Government for 20-minute neighbourhoods as the consultation is still underway to inform the potential implementation of a plan.
In relation to further questions you pose such as the potential for fines to be implemented in Falkirk at any point to facilitate such future active and local transport strategy plans, the Scottish Government outlines an overall objective, and it is up to a local authority to implement this within the context of their areas and what meets local requirements.
Kind regards,
Michelle Thomson MSP
SNP - Member of the Scottish Parliament for Falkirk East
13/07/23 I have had no further response from Michelle Thomson who constantly sends be back to local councillors. Today I went to another Councillor surgery advertised as Upper Braes Jim Robertson. Once again, Jim was not in attendance? Gordon Forest (Lower Braes attended)
My first question was, where is Jim? Unfortunately, Jim is still ill. But this does raise questions about his ability to preform as a local councillor.
From: Divergentparty@outlook.com
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2023 9:15 PM
To: Jim Robertson <Jim.Robertson@falkirk.gov.uk>
Cc: gordon.forrest@falkirk.gov.uk; Claire MackieBrown <Claire.MackieBrown@falkirk.gov.uk>; Siobhan Paterson <Siobhan.Paterson@falkirk.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: MSP Enquiry (Case Ref: MT1880) Falkirk Active/Local Transport Strategy 2023
Hi Jim,
I hope this email finds you in good spirit as I gather you are still unwell.
I was disappointed to attend another surgery today advertised as yours to find Gordon Stuart for lower Braes in attendance again.
Unfortunately, Gordon Stuart (in copy) and I clearly don’t get on.
However, it would be good to speak specifically with my area elected SNP councillor.
Specifically, you as a member of the SNP because it’s the SNP in Government this is coming from as indicated from Michelle Thompson MSP in her email dated 13th April 2023 directly quoted below.
“While I understand that you have concerns regarding this strategy, the most appropriate person to take these concerns forward on your behalf would be a locally elected councillor.”
Are you available to speak with me at some point?
Are you okay to continue in service as a councillor with your health condition?
Being SNP, we probably don’t see eye to eye on politics, however I would like you to know I genuinely want what is best for the local residents and the 20 minute neighbourhoods are a major concern.
Please take 25 minute to view this video I made. https://youtu.be/6VbMnrAjyY8. Sorry for the performance, I am no video editor! But it gets the main points across, I think.
We have a good group of us now and have 222 signatures on our petition to halt this strategy. (Link to the petition: https://chng.it/GffCmFWF) A good number of these from your ward.
We as a group have just ordered the first 20,000 leaflets for the area. We have a specific page on our website as I have said before.
(Link to the website. https://www.divergentparty.com/falkirk-20-minute-neighbourhoods/the-plans)
I believe this constitutes a councillor requirement under “Representing their ward” and we really want to know what your thoughts and opinions are.
The main point I would like to address is as per the email below and get a response form you or with your help specifically answering the questions posed.
I would like to think it is more than fair and appropriate to ask you to help with a response that answers these primary questions. Not just for me, but for all, of which there are clearly many! Concerned residents you represent.
Questions in a nutshell:
Can anyone, at any point over the next 10 years covering the full strategy length, expect a fine for driving a route they can currently drive today?
I don’t see people doing this voluntarily and hitting the 20% reduction target in car Kilometres will include some carrot and stick approach. What is this going to be? (Both Carrot and stick please!)
As per the strategy, removal of on street parking is a given. (Click on “View the Falkirk Active Travel Strategy” website address above to view the full document) Where will these residents park?
How much public money is being spent on this? (3A follow up, do you think this is appropriate when people are struggling to eat, heat homes and pay mortgages?)
This is being done for “climate change”. So, what global reduction in temperature will all this spend and hardship gain over the 10 years?
Are local authorities required to implement this by law or just Encouraged as per Kevin Stuart MSP first letter in response to my questions?
Further plans are mentioned as follow ups to this to reach net zero by 2045. What are these plans?
All reasonable questions and the fact I have had two senior SNP government minister responses that give absolutely no direct answers is certainly a cause for concern.
It would be very easy to allay all our fears with a very simple response as below:
(Response 1: No 2: No carrot or stick, if people don’t want to, that’s fine, 3: we will build close car parking for them. 4: £££ as soon as people can live properly 5: a 0.000000005% reduction playing our part 6: not required to by law 7: we will plant more trees to offset.)
So, unless I am right, why not just respond this way? Let me tell you, I sincerely hope I am wrong!
Unfortunately, many other questions must be asked, but as a primary response, actually supplying answers to these 7 questions would be a great start.
Hope you are feeling better soon and more importantly, we get to chat very soon. The business case is already out to tender on Public Contracts Scotland so time is of the essence.
Please respond by the 21st July 2023.
Kind Regards
Mark Tunnicliff
On behalf of the 222 signatures on this petition thus far.
PS Please do not have civil servants respond, they are unaccountable to the people.
30/07/23 I have still had no further response from Michelle Thomson who constantly sends be back to local councillors. Today I made an official complaint that Upper Braes councillor Jim Robertson is not responding.
Please see the complaint below issued on the Council website with the auto response.
Below this you will find the FOI request I also made today to find out what constitutes a “very extensive” consultation.
I have contacted one of my councillors, Jim Robertson on the 13th April 2023 for Upper Braes and had an initial great response on the 14th April 2023. Unfortunately, since this time I have sent multiple emails and also attended surgeries advertised as Jim's, to find he wasn't actually present.
My last email sent was 13th July in which I asked Jim to respond as my upper braes elected councillor. All other Councillors have responded but not Jim.
It has come to my attention through information from other councillors that Jim is unfortunately unwell. As much as I understand this is unfortunate and wish him all the best in recovery, I must at this point raise an official complaint that under the Code of Conduct for Councillors, 7th December 2021, Jim Robertson is now not preforming his duties as a councillor under Section 2: Key Principles of the code of conduct.
The specific key complaint that he is failing to "be accessible to all the people of the area for which I have been elected to serve".
I am willing to provide all the emails sent to Jim and having asked for a response a number of times, don't believe that a complaint should be made in order to obtain a response.
I would like a meeting with Jim before the end of August as one of my elected members of the council and failing that, would ask for a by-election.
Please respond by letting me know who the Monitoring Officer & Independent Officer are, who will decide if this complaint merits formal investigation.
I do expect a response within the 12 week timeframe .
Regards
Mark Tunnicliff
The auto response:
Thank you, we have received your 'Contact us - Report a complaint' request.
If you need to contact us about this request, your unique case number is: FC535508570.
What happens next?
We aim to resolve complaints quickly and close to where we provided the service. We will contact you within 5 working days to let you know the outcome of your complaint.
FOI Request:
Falkirk Council Local Transport strategy / Active Travel Strategy. During the Falkirk Council Committees meeting on the 11th April, Michael McGuinness stated at 1:06:40 on the recording that "This piece of work has been going on quite a number of years now. The consultation exercise was very extensive, it commenced back in September 21. It has been working very closely with key strategies."
Could you please provide all the consultation data referred to in reference to the Falkirk Council Local Transport strategy / Active Travel Strategy.
Please also provide a response to the following questions.
1. How may people provided a response?
2. How many did you regard as positive? (pro active travel)
3. How many did you regard as negative? (against active travel)
4. What were the questions and format of the consultation?
5. How was this consultation publicised?
AUTO response:
Contact us - Information request
Thank you, we have received your 'Contact us - Information request'.
If you need to contact us about this request, your unique case number is: FC535512150.
What happens next?
We will answer your request within 20 working days. If you have asked for a large amount of information, we may make a charge. However, we will let you know how much this is before providing the information. If you have asked for environmental information, and your request is complex or extensive, the 20 working day period may be extended to 40 working days. If this is the case, we will let you know.
Sometimes there will be reasons why we cannot provide the information you requested. If that is the case, we will tell you why. If we refuse to give the information to you, we must tell you why. You can challenge our decision to keep information from you and ask us to review our response. If you are unhappy after the review, you can appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner.
02/08/23 Today (after making my complaint) I got the below response from Upper Braes councillor Jim Robertson.
I have asked for a meeting with Jim and for it to be recorded so we can share what one of our elected SNP Councillors has to say.
Remember, it is not a crime for civil servants to lie. (Divergent party would change that!)
From: Jim Robertson <Jim.Robertson@falkirk.gov.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 9:27 AM
To: Mark Tunnicliff
Subject: RE: MSP Enquiry (Case Ref: MT1880)
Good Morning Mark
In respect of the information that you are seeking, would you be happy that I send the information onto other officers and the portfolio holder who should be in the position to answer the questions that you have posed.
I look forward to hearing from you in due course.
Kind regards
Cllr Jim Robertson
From: Mark Tunnicliff
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 10:09 PM
To: Jim Robertson <Jim.Robertson@falkirk.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: MSP Enquiry (Case Ref: MT1880)
Hello Jim,
Good to hear from you.
As my SNP elected councillor, we think you are best placed to help me and the people I currently represent calling ourselves Falkirk Unbound.
This new group currently consists of 519 other people including a core group of around 20 people. We have people from within the upper braes area and we are growing daily.
We have legitimate concerns, and I am looking to you as my elected SNP councillor to get some answers.
Unfortunately, from the information we have had so far from two SNP MSPs Kevin Stuart and Fiona Hyslop, via our SNP MSP for Falkirk Michelle Thomson, we have had almost no answers.
But Falkirk SNP MSP Michelle Thomson said in one response, and I quote “the most appropriate person to take these concerns forward on your behalf would be a locally elected councillor”
We actually agree with Michelle on this, and we do not want civil servants to respond for a number of reasons.
They are not accountable.
They do not make any key decisions. They act on instructions from the respective government.
Councillors should be extremely well informed in order to be able to talk with residents about concerns and issues. This is a clear part of the role as a councillor.
To this end, I would like to meet with you to discuss these concerns. I would like to have the meeting recorded for the rest of the group. Even a teams call would suffice.
I would also like to invite you and any other councillors to attend a group meeting on the 25th August in Grangemouth.
I have been very disappointed to not be able to speak with you about this so far.
I’m sure you are aware I have attended surgeries, advertised as yours, only to find you not present.
I can make myself available at any point next week to understand what the process and timeline will be to get answers.
We are simply a lot of concerned residents and are looking to you. Me specifically, as you are my elected SNP representative in an SNP controlled council/governement.
Regards
Falkirk Unbound.
07/08/23 Nothing back from councillor Jim Robertson so far.
However, I did get the below back from a Civil Servant Ewan below. Some very interesting wording here such as the suggestion Councillors do not have a responsability or obligation to respond.
As normal, I beg to differ and point to the clear code of conduct requirements in my response.
From: Ewan Mcwilliams <Ewan.McWilliams@falkirk.gov.uk>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 11:46 AM
To: FalkirkUnbound@outlook.com
Subject: Councillor Contact
Dear Mr Tunnicliff,
The Council does not deal with formal complaints about councillors; however, I will try to provide some information to help address your concerns.
I understand that you sought to attend an advertised surgery of Councillor Robertson to find he was not present. And as you mention, you were aware that Councillor Robertson has been unwell.
This has impacted his in-person attendance at his planned surgeries. While it is not mandatory for a councillor to hold an in-person surgery, some councillors do, and others do not. However, our councillors (Councillor Robertson included) are accessible by a variety of means (email, telephone, letter etc.) beyond an in-person surgery.
When referencing the Code of Conduct, you raise a point about non-response to email communications.
The Code of Conduct does not oblige a councillor to respond to every contact and that there may be circumstances where a councillor identifies that it is best not to respond to a constituent. For information, the criteria for calling a by-election is set out on the Scottish Government website - local council elections and by-elections.
A final point of note is that the investigation of complaints about councillors is undertaken by the Ethical Standards Commissioner. Any official complaints should be directed to them, via their website Ethical Standards Commissioner.
I hope this has been of some help.
Regards
Ewan McWilliams
Members’ Services Coordinator
T. 01324 506152
Transformation, Communities and Corporate Services
From: FalkirkUnbound@outlook.com
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 1:15 PM
To: Ewan Mcwilliams <Ewan.McWilliams@falkirk.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: Councillor Contact
Good afternoon Ewan,
Thank you for taking the time to respond and I found the response very interesting.
Just for information, I would like to refer you to the Standards Commission for Scotland. Website here specific to the codes of conduct I referred to:
https://www.standardscommissionscotland.org.uk/codes-of-conduct/councillors-code-of-conduct
I have attached the download you can find on this page.
I refer specifically to page 6, section 2.
I also refer to page 30 that indicates a breach of the code “may be more appropriate in some circumstances for attempts to be made to resolve the matter informally at a local level.”
This email is conformation that I have attempted to do that, and as such I will now refer the complaint if required, as you have suggested, to the Standards Commission and Ethical Standards Commissioner.
Jim has now contacted me via email about the issue in question and the group I represent.
However, I would suggest communication is required from our councillors under the code of conduct, and we feel in this instance, it is best done via an in person or teams meeting to fully appreciate and understand the concerns.
Once again, thank you for your speedy response as it is much appreciated.
Kind Regards
Mark Tunnicliff
07/08/23 Next is the email I sent to ALL Falkirk Councillors inviting them to our meeting.
I actually sent this on Saturday the 5th August
From: FalkirkUnbound@outlook.com
Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2023 2:03 PM
To: david.aitchison@falkirk.gov.uk; stacey.devine@falkirk.gov.uk; ann.ritchie@falkirk.gov.uk; david.balfour@falkirk.gov.uk; alan.nimmo@falkirk.gov.uk; robert.spears@falkirk.gov.uk; fiona.collie@falkirk.gov.uk; paul.garner@falkirk.gov.uk; alf.kelly@falkirk.gov.uk; brian.mccabe@falkirk.gov.uk; gary.bouse@falkirk.gov.uk; margaret.anslow@falkirk.gov.uk; jim.flynn@falkirk.gov.uk; laura.murtagh@falkirk.gov.uk; william.buchanan@falkirk.gov.uk; bryan.deakin@falkirk.gov.uk; jack.redmond@falkirk.gov.uk; robert.bissett@falkirk.gov.uk; james.bundy@falkirk.gov.uk; cecil.meiklejohn@falkirk.gov.uk; iain.sinclair@falkirk.gov.uk; lorna.binnie@falkirk.gov.uk; euan.stainbank@falkirk.gov.uk; sarah.patrick@falkirk.gov.uk; gordon.forrest@falkirk.gov.uk; j.kerr@falkirk.gov.uk; anne.hannah@falkirk.gov.uk; Claire MackieBrown <Claire.MackieBrown@falkirk.gov.uk>; Jim Robertson <Jim.Robertson@falkirk.gov.uk>; Siobhan Paterson <Siobhan.Paterson@falkirk.gov.uk>
Subject: Falkirk Active Travel Strategy / Falkirk Unbound.
Hello Councillors,
I would like to think you are all now aware of our Falkirk Unbound group, but if you are not, let me begin by explaining what has brought us together.
We have a good number of active members and we have major concerns surrounding the Falkirk Active Travel Strategy.
If you haven’t already, I would strongly suggest you have a good read of it.
I think there is little doubt that the implementation of this will affect everyone in Falkirk. Even all of you.
I am also aware it was unanimously agreed upon by all councillors at the council meeting held on the 11th April 23.
In a nutshell, it seems on the face of it, its intention is to make things accessible within 20 minutes walk of your area. This is great!
Unfortunately, it also comes with an implementation that states the focus will no longer be on cars but on walking and cycling, amongst other things such as car clubs.
Below are some of the concerning direct quotes that we feel are a out of touch with what most people actually want.
Our vision, people can live their lives without owning a car.
Those who have access to a vehicle to consider giving it up or using it less.
Street closures and semi-permeability.
Removes the need for vehicle ownership.
Reduce the number of private cars on the road.
Shift from private car to walking.
Break traditional ownership models.
Enable people to travel without the need to fuel and maintain private cars.
Replace on-street parking with wider footways and new cycleways.
Access to transport including car, on an on-demand basis.
Providing people with short-term access to shared vehicles like cars.
Our concerns have been sent to some local and national politicians about further implementations such as fines and major restrictions.
It would have been very easy at that point for the council and politicians to allay our fears. However, Falkirk Council and even national politicians Keven Stuart and Fiona Hyslop have simply refused to do so despite letters received.
This leads us to the conclusion that further impact on car use is coming as part of what seems on the face of it to be a good idea.
Other main issues include a lack of consultation. (See Falkirk Council FOI request 106283)
We have spoken with hundreds of residents thus far and very few know about this.
We have therefor come up with an initial set of questions we wanted answered.
1. No fines will be implemented as part of any of the 20-minute neighbourhoods implementation in Falkirk. At this point or at any other in the next ten years covering the full strategy timeline.
2. You will not reduce road capacity or freedom of movement for private vehicles, including parking and restrictions on travel amounts. (plans say otherwise!)
3. The cost of the implementation will not be prioritised over people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis.
(IE, nobody, especially vulnerable families, will be struggling with the cost of living in Falkirk before any further money is spent on this. My belief is this is basic prioritisation of public money.)
4. In your letter it states, “Local Authorities are encouraged to develop their own local active travel strategies”. Is it your belief this isn’t a requirement?
5. Please confirm what the Scottish government will be spending on all areas of implementation of 20-minute neighbourhoods?
6. When implemented across Scotland, what global temperature reduction per year or overall will be the result of this spend?
7 The route map states the reduction to 2030. However, in your first letter it seems to suggest further reductions may be required in the future. Plan to reach net zero by 2045.
What are, if any, the plans for transport after 2030 to meet your 2045 targets?
Our current main aims are to:
Make sure everyone is aware. (Something we feel should be the council’s responsibility)
Get answers on our specific questions about our concerns. (these can be found on our website including the responses thus far that don’t say much at all)
Halt the strategy until we have the answers we need. (Recognise this is halt, not stop. If people are in favour once they know the facts, then it should progress)
As part of our aim number 1, we our holding our first public meeting on the 25th August at 19:00 to 20:00, Bowhouse community centre, 130 Bowhouse Road, Grangemouth, FK3 0BQ.
You are very welcome to attend, and we hope to see some of you there.
We are doing this in a very open and transparent way. All communications and outcomes are being made public on the website and it is a lot of information.
https://www.divergentparty.com/falkirk-20-minute-neighbourhoods/the-plans
But I hope this gives you a bitesize of what we are doing and why.
Below you will also find a screen shot of the petition that has a good rating in growth strength.
(Showed 548 signatures. At the time of this post we have 571)
This is an update from an email a few days ago on what we have done so far:
We have been distributing leaflets (20,000 so far) and done Facebook posts to try to inform people.
We started a petition, now at 502 with an aim of 1600 minimum.
We are putting together a mailing list. Separate from the petition as a core group)
We have approach venues in Falkirk to look at our first meeting end August.
We have submitted an FOI to the council around the "extensive consultation" 😂
We have asked questions, but had limited responses from the government. Even getting two letters back from the ministry for transport Scotland that didn't really say much.
We have knocked on doors to speak with people.
We are still in the process of setting up the presentation.
We will look to put this online and include a QR code in the next leaflets.
I have set up a website from a political point of view.
Thus approaching this from a bottom up and top down prospective.
All this and more.
Once the meetings end of August in person and online have taken place, we can take stock.
Next steps include.
Keep information flowing.
Organise mass emails to politicians.
Organise a demonstration and submit the petition.
We are placing a lot of time, effort and money against this and I hope you get a feel for our passion and determination to get answers.
The people of Falkirk deserve answers on this, and you have all been elected to provide those answers.
I would be more than happy to speak with any councillors and hope to meet with you soon.
Kind Regards
Mark Tunnicliff
Member of Falkirk against 20-minute neighbourhoods’ group.
22/08/23 I got the above response from Fiona Hyslop MSP via Michelle Thomson MSP.
On point 1 Does not answer the question around fines. what I am referring to is what has happened in other locations in Scotland and the rest of the UK as demonstrated by my presentation for the first meeting to be held on the 25th August 2023.
However it does indicate that this is for Falkirk Council to decide and implement.
On point 2 Again, doesn’t answer the question, but clearly states it is nothing to do with the devolved government.
On point 3 Again it doesn’t answer the question and again indicates this is a matter for local government.
On point 4 So, it is certainly not mandated. But for any extra funding, it may be (Is) a requirement dependent upon the project.
On point 5 Either not clear on the spend or again, nothing to do with them and all down to local government.
On point 6 Now we are getting to the crazy stuff. No idea of how much or even if this will reduce global temperature. The air we all breath affects the poor more than the wealthy. Not sure how they have come up with that as it is my opinion we all breath the same air?
On point 7 There is more of this to come !
My conclusion of this is that this will not stop, but it is currently firmly down to Falkirk Council and not devolved government.
24/08/23 I got the below response to the freedom of information request sent to the council that asked:
Could you please provide all the consultation data referred to in reference to the Falkirk Council Local Transport strategy / Active Travel Strategy.
1. How many people provided a response?
2. How many did you regard as positive? (pro active travel)
3. How many did you regard as negative? (against active travel)
4. What were the questions and format of the consultation?
5. How was this consultation publicised?
Dear Mr Tunicliff,
Freedom of Information Request 106283: Local Transport Strategy/Active Travel Strategy Consultation
Please find Falkirk Council’s response to your Freedom of Information enquiry regarding below.
Could you please provide all the consultation data referred to in reference to the Falkirk Council Local Transport strategy / Active Travel Strategy.
The data gathered for the surveys conducted for the Local and Active Travel Strategies is attached to this response.
1. How many people provided a response?
732 individual responses were received.
9 Focus Groups were held with local groups.
4 business responded to the Local Business Survey.
In order to asses this I have calculated the average. This = 509 positive Reponses. APX 70% positive response.
In order to asses this I have calculated the average. This = 223 negative Reponses. APX 31% positive response.
4. What were the questions and format of the consultation?
The public and business consultations were available online. Direct stakeholder and focus group engagement was carried out in person.
The attached questionnaire responses show the format of the public and business surveys.
5. How was this consultation publicised?
The consultation was publicised via social media platforms, local press, stakeholder engagement and public events.
I hope this addresses your FOI query. However, if you are not satisfied with the way in which your FOI request was dealt with, I have attached a ‘Right to Complain’ leaflet which sets out your rights of recourse. If you would like to know how we treat your personal information, you can read more on the Council’s privacy webpage – https://www.falkirk.gov.uk/privacy/.
Regards,
Lynn Slavin: Transport Planning Officer
Place Services
Suite 1b, Falkirk Stadium
4 Stadium Way
Falkirk
FK2 9EE
24/08/23 I am not sure how from these questions and responses you can ascertain either positive or negative responses.
However, it would seem they think it is a 70% positive response. That’s 509 people from a population of over 160,000.
Certainly not an “extensive consultation”!
Especially considering we now have 813 responses to halt this strategy.
This came with 4 large documents to back up the overall data. If you use the contact us on our page, I would be happy to forward this information on to anyone who wants to see it.
25/08/23 The public meeting event held in Grangemouth.
This was a good size venue and had availability. Unsurprisingly, the council venues never responded to my request for availability. Rather unfortunate and disappointing as a lot of them or due to close down to lack of use. This has happened now a number of times to me personally.
It cost me £90 to rent for 3 hours and the event started at 19:00 until 21:00.
Each person on the panel had opening statements. I will list the ones here I can and highlight key areas.
First of all, Patrick Duffy:
20 minute neighbourhoods are a GLOBAL initiative.
The WEF and UN Agenda has 17 Sustainable goals & NetZero targets ,which SNP signed up to in 2015 – our politicians agreed that you must use ZERO carbon to save the planet .
20 minute neighbourhoods ( 20MN ) are designed to measure , manage and charge you for your Carbon use.
The infrastructure will track your travel, collect data on digital purchases and consumption.
They are underpinned by NetZero, an extreme “Green Agenda”
Lets look at NetZero - what does it look like in a zero carbon neighbourhood ?.
Absolute Zero means NO air travel , No meat , No gas appliances and eventually NO cars
Your purchases, movement and resource consumption must all be measured using carbon trackers to establish your carbon credit score – these ideas are fundamental to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the UN .
Who are you saving the planet for if you can no longer enjoy the planet?
DEMOCRACY
Has there been fair , transparent , inclusive and widespread consultation for these proposed 20 MN neighbourhoods ?
There are over 100 Councils in the UK working in lockstep on this . Coincidence ? I don’t think so
This has been orchestrated from the top down. I suggest WEF, UN, Central Government , local councils.
Were any of us aware of this up until very recently?
Were you informed or consulted. These are life changing proposals.
Risk Assessments :
Given the experimental nature of the 20MN , have RA been conducted for the scheme in relation to the concerns raised ?
Mental Health:
What is the impact on health living in zones, given unprecedented harms observed post the LOCKDOWNS in recent times.
Is this a containment plan for future CLIMATE LOCKDOWNS
We don’t know but it certainly doesn’t feel like a freedom to roam plan.
These plans were actually passed on the 11th April this year by our Council who are obviously just following orders from afar.
So, we need to stop our governments from turning our free and democratic societies into totalitarian regimes and we need to act now before it’s too late.
Based upon these plans, it would appear that they would like to enslave and impoverish every single human being on this planet .
Governments / Councils do not have the right to dictate to the people what they want and what they don’t want.
This will all end if we simply say NO .
The people behind the WEF , UN and WHO are unelected . They are controlled and run by multi billionaires and they should never be allowed to act in place of a democratically elected government .
We are millions , millions around the world . The WEF, UN , WHO etc are the fringe minority. They need to be removed from power and influence in our daily lives.
So, these proposed 20Min neighbourhoods will most definitely dramatically change our lives.
Businesses will be affected because of road closures for sure. We’re being pushed down a one direction route and this will be the thin end of the wedge. What will come next?
Digital IDs, Digital passports , QR codes to move around and enter shops , etc , track and trace , 24/7 surveillance , access to our cars , other vehicles , etc
Public transportation is presently very limited and completely inconvenient for many people .
Remember , these Council officials work for us. We pay their wages .
They’ve tried to sneak all of this in the back door .
The information is on the Council website but is very difficult to find.
Many of us have children and grandchildren . Is this the life & future that we want for them ?
The Bill of Rights is still current law. It was created by lawmakers in 1688 and updated in 1707 to include Scotland, following the Act of Union
This guarantees the people freedom of travel and navigation. This law was put in place to protect us from tyrannical governments.
All in all, there is no emergency climate crisis.
The Globalists use people like Greta No Fun Berg as their front person ( failed student )
People like Dr Judith Curry , expert climatologist for the past 30 + yrs , Dr John Clauser, Nobel prize winning Scientist are silenced , censored and discredited by the elite Globalists because they doesn’t agree with them . They say it’s a HOAX - and there are many thousands more of this opinion course.
Make no mistake, 20MN neighbourhoods are not for your convenience.
It’s about power, control and , of course money for them .
The rich have got richer over the past 3 yrs or so and we have all become poorer.
Klaus Schwab ( friends with our KING ) famously continues to tell us :
You will own nothing but will be happy.
+ one further point
There will be only 3 UK airports in operation by 2029 - LHR , MAN and GLA
What does that tell you ?
If you want to make your dreams come true, the first thing you have to do is wake up." - J.M. Power
Believe you can and you're halfway there." - Theodore Roosevelt
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Next was Gerry with a statement read out on behalf of Councillor Claire Mackie-Brown of the Conservative party. Claire had a prior arrangement and unfortunately couldn’t make this event, but has offered to attend the next one.
The proposed Active Travel Strategy by Falkirk Council will have a huge detrimental impact on those already disadvantaged and struggling.
Falkirk Council need to fully engage with communities and listen to their feedback and concerns before implementing such a strategy.
The regeneration of the Falkirk town centre is necessary, however it needs to be focused on being accessible for everyone.
I fully support the aims of the Falkirk District Action Group. I will be supporting my constituents and ensuring that their voices are heard.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
After this Labour councillor Siobhan Paterson and Conservative councillor James Bundy both spoke.
Then I (Mark Tunnicliff) did my presentation as follows.
Slide 3
Hello everyone,
I have with the assistance of the Falkirk Unbound group, organised this event to be a public forum for the providing of information, civilised debate and to hear both the pros, and cons of the approved, Falkirk Active Travel Strategy.
I’m am sure we have both supporters and opponents of this Strategy with us today and it is important to listen to both points of view.
On the one hand, we will have people here today who like the idea of fewer cars. They see this strategy as providing safer and quieter streets and some vehemently think this strategy and others like it are of vital importance to save the planet.
Some don’t drive and like the idea of sustainable travel.
On the other hand, I think most of us here tonight have concerns, specifically when looking not at the aims, but the implementation of this vision for our future. The unintended consequences, such as busier roads, more air pollution, blockades of streets with planters and the forceful use of powers to make travel and even owning a car a lot more expensive. Not to mention travel taking a lot more time. This includes people who are not as able bodied and others, being left in a poor situation with rights of freedom of movement being negatively impacted.
However, to make any informed decision either way, we must hear both sides of the debate and I ask you all to help in that tonight by giving all speakers time to be heard.
But before we get to all of you, I would like to give you all a very brief update of what we, Falkirk Unbound as a group have done so far.
Slide 4
1. We have asked relevant questions to both local and national governments and authorities.
2. We have set up a specific page for all the correspondence on a website.
3. We have printed over 20,000 leaflets and posted them.
4. We have run a local social media campaign.
5. We have knocked on doors to speak with people.
Slide 5
6. We have a petition to halt, (Not Stop) the strategy approval.
7. We have had articles in the Falkirk Herrold and Daily record
8. We have sent a Freedom of information request on the “Extensive Consultation” to Falkirk Council. (Should be in by the 25th August)
On a more personal note, I find it very disappointing that we have felt the need to act to inform people, when this really should have been down to The Falkirk Council.
We did invite all Falkirk Councillors to attend tonight, and our thanks go out to those in attendance.
We also invited both the local Falkirk MPs and the Falkirk MSP.
Unfortunately, and perhaps not surprisingly, none of them are in attendance tonight.
But let’s get down to the main issues and concerns we have as an organisation and why we are worried.
Some of which we have already touched on.
Slide 6
Remembering that it is now a legal requirement under The Climate Change Act 2008, (2050 Target amendment) Order 2019 to reach net zero by 2050.
The most comprehensive report on how to reach this government commitment of net zero was done by a research programme named UK Fires who produced a report named absolute Zero.
This was sponsored by the government and conducted by scientist from six leading universities in the UK, including Oxford & Cambridge, has recommended the following changes that will be required in order for the UK to achieve its legal requirement of net zero by 2050.
Slide 7
This is the summary page of that report.
· All new road vehicles will be electric and average under 1000KG
· All commercial airports will close
· All commercial shipping will decline to zero
· Heating of all buildings will be achieved by heat pumps only.
· Domestic appliances will be electric and reduced in size.
· Beef and lamb will be phased out entirely.
· Fertilizer we use will be greatly reduced.
· Fossil fuels will be completely phased out.
At this point I would like to remind everyone to take a look themselves and that you don’t need to take our word for it.
This may seem farfetched now, and I along with many others I am sure don’t think it’s even achievable, but the government did make it a legal requirement and you will be amazed what people will put up with if nudged there slowly.
Slide 8
1. So the first question is, how far are they going to go? Many people don’t realise the impact this will have on our lives. Let’s be clear, the impact will be huge.
2. Why on this and many other important issues, do we get a lack of communications from our politicians? In this instance, it was said in a Falkirk Council meeting on the 11th April this year to have had an “Extensive Consultation”. However, we believe it is extremely clear this is not true. But we all know, it certainly should be!
3. Will any type of fines or fees be implemented as part of this strategy, either now or in the future. With stated aims such as a reduction of 20% by 2030 on private vehicle kilometres.
We don’t believe this stated aim would be achieved, by persuasion alone.
When we look to Glasgow and Edinburgh, we see Low Emission Zones and parking permits. In Edinburgh these permits are costing businesses up to £1520 a year. For parking in an area, they have always been able to park in.
The London ULEZ is now been extended and in places such as Oxford, the BBC panorama programme made it clear how much more difficult travel now is due to semi-permeable roads and street closures as mentioned in this strategy.
4. What comes next. As previously stated, if the plan is 20% reduction of car kilometres by 2030, what is the plan for net-zero by 2045?
5. Is it even a good idea to reach net zero is another question altogether. How much CO2 does our plant life need. What is the right level of CO2 in the atmosphere? How much will life changing policies on car use and travel help?
What will be the global warming reduction against the cost involved?
Slide 9
At this point I would just like ask you all to tell me what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2?
To all those who said 0.041% you are correct. This is 410 parts per million.
The worst-case scenario is a worldwide increase of 2.44 parts per million each year.
The whole UK territories account for up to 1% of this world wide increase each year.
This means, at worst, we the whole of the UK adds 0.00000244% of CO2 each year.
6. How much will the implementation of this all cost? With a cost of living crisis, when people are struggling to heat homes and put food on the table, is it wise to spend our money on active travel?
We know, a nuclear power plant and/or weighted electricity storage units would help not only the climate, but in the high cost and unpredictability of future power.
In west Lothian, they now have talking rubbish bins in Linlithgow that say thank you for using them. But they are also closing down 3 leisure centres.
Is this responsible use of our money?
We also note that a Climate Change Committee (CCC) report June 2022 recommends high taxes for all forms of travel.
When we look at these questions and ask the politicians, surely as sovereign people, we deserve clear responses. They are after all, elected to represent our interests.
They often rely on so called experts and forget or ignore the will of the people. It is my opinion at least, that all experts should have a right to be heard. And we, the people, should have just as much input, even from a layman prospective on the correct courses of action.
I would like to run you through a few items on our power point tonight to highlight why we think the way we do.
Slide 10
This first video highlights the 4 Billion pound a day industry stemming from this climate change agenda.
Some have always said, simply follow the money.
Slide 11-41 (Here we go over the strategy as can be seen by clicking on the button at the top of this page.)
The next part shows you the strategy itself.
You will see as we quickly run through the strategy the highlighted areas that make it clear this strategy is aimed against car use.
Slide 42
On this slide you see information on Edinburgh Council fees implemented for parking.
You even need to pay this as a resident parking on most of the normal streets.
Slide 43-44
The slide here shows responses we have had from Kevin Stuart MSP & Fiona Hyslop MSP. That answer almost nothing at all.
We do actually have another response from Fiona Hyslop that answers some more of our questions, but only got it over the last few days so didn’t make this slide.
(please see above for these letters.)
Slide 45
This is part of the BBC panorama documentary I suggest you all watch. It mentions in this strategy road closures and unfortunately, this can be the result.
Slide 46
The next slide is of part of the meeting at Falkirk Council on the 11th April this year.
Slide 47 (first 28 seconds only.)
Here we have Leonard Nimoy telling us in 1978 that the scientists predict the next ice-age in the not-so-distant future. Stop at 1.11
Yes, they certainly got it wrong. If you believe in Global warming, clearly very wrong!
We need policies for small businesses and residents. Unfortunately, it is the case as evidenced in both Glasgow and Edinburgh, that when things such as parking restrictions are in effect, trade is affected and businesses close.
Our concerns are valid and relate directly to evidence. Primarily produced by the government.
So we will not be waring tin foil hats tonight.
Thank you for your time.
-------------------------------- STOP----------------------------------
Thank you Gerry,
I implore everyone to try find common ground. We need to create a diplomatic, transparent solution that is acceptable to the majority of people in the area.
So, what can we do, well we can keep pressure on our elected representatives, we can make sure everyone is aware of the things happening around them.
Maybe some will not listen, and the time for change will not come until some of these policies are implemented and hit people directly in the pocket.
However, it is my belief an alternative approach is the way forwards.
If we can not change the minds of our elected representatives, we simply need to change those who represent us.
I will be standing in the next election either as an independent or under my own political party, divergent party.
I am not doing this for an easy life and people are welcome to speculate about my motives. But as an ex-soldier, I took the responsibility to defend everyone very seriously. Now I am a farther, and my responsibilities are very clear to me for the good of my daughter.
So, what can you do. Here are some suggestions.
· Please get people to vote.
· Stand in local elections.
· Meet, question and support good candidates.
· Support us in your local area distributing information.
· Give us your email by sending one to us at Falkirkunbound@outlook.com
· Put pressure on your elected local government.
On that, I would like to finish off by reading out part of my first every political speech given on the 13th February 2019.
This nation belongs to all who are a part of it. We all contribute in different ways and live together. When enough people make false promises, words stop meaning anything. Democracy must demand openness and honesty, reasons and referendums and facts in black and white that are understandable and available to all of us.
Today, one of the most important aspects is respect for different opinions. All of which should be open for reasonable challenge.
25/08/23 I did a few videos and have some pictures from that meeting. Please click on the black play link below to see the shorts I have done so far.
It wasn’t exactly what we had in mind and two people in particular were challenging and said a few things uncalled for.
One was they (the councillors) have committed genocide by installing 5G masts. (This was later found to be untrue as they were installed by national government with no local say in the matter)
The second was when Councillor Paterson admitted to only skimming the strategy before approving it, to which one man said, “all you councillors should be executed.”
This is clearly not helpful, uncalled for and not condoned by any of our group. However, I think most recognise it was nothing more than a figure of speech and not a direct threat.
It lasted the full duration and wasn’t abandond as reported. We had 140 people in attendance including an Independent Councillor Robert Spears.
29/08/23 I received the following from a reporter.
From: Kirsty Paterson <kirsty.paterson@reachplc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 12:31:54 PM
To: divergentparty@outlook.com <divergentparty@outlook.com>
Subject: Press enquiry
Dear Mr Tunnicliff,
I am following up a story about a public meeting that was held on Friday evening in Bowhouse Community Centre. I understand you were a key organiser and spoke at the meeting, which was attended by more than 140 people.
I have spoken to a couple of people who were appalled by the atmosphere, saying it was intimidating and no-one was interested in letting the councillors speak.
At one point I believe someone called for all councillors to be executed and was loudly applauded.
I understand Falkirk District Action Group have withdrawn their support over the conduct of the meeting.
I wondered if you would like to comment?
Yours,
Kirsty Paterson
Local Democracy Reporter (Falkirk)
Reach Plc
07393 754839
29/08/23 I responded as provided below:
Hello Kirsty,
I think we did our best as event amateur organisers to try get a balanced view and invited both people for and against the 20 minute neighbourhoods strategy approved by the Falkirk Council on the 11th April this year. We organised this event as the Divergent party, FDAG and the Falkirk Unbound Group as an open forum for discussion and to present the facts.
Unfortunately, this wasn't the open forum to hear all views we intended it to be, and it certainly wasn't any of the organisers intention or I believe our fault that two or three of those that attended simply couldn't seem to control what they said or the way they came across. Two comments in the two-hour long discussion were in particular uncalled for and not something event organisers either expected or condoned.
However, to suggest that such comments got loud applause is inaccurate. It is also inaccurate that the councillors weren’t allowed to speak. Each had opening statements and conversed throughout the event.
Only one member of the attendance seemed at one point intimidating, and this was swiftly delt with by event organisers.
(The language used here seems to me like you are looking for a story)
We certainly couldn't afford security and despite the legitimate anger some people feel, there is an appropriate way to express those feelings.
It is regrettable that FDAG has on the back of this chosen to end direct support to the Falkirk Unbound group that include members of the public, some businesses and myself from an independent political candidate point of view. As for the FDAG, an organisation that works with councillors, I fully appreciate the reasons behind the decision to withdraw support.
The fact is we still need to stand together to make sure this isn't implemented in Falkirk and the FDAG is still in support of this idea as detailed in the Facebook comments as partly quoted below.
“I still think the 20 minute neighbourhood needs to be challenged for answers from Council Officers.”
“ Fdag has withdrawn support to the Falkirk Unbound group. I wish Mark Tunnicliff and his team all the best in their campaign.”
To be very open and transparent, I have included all my speech and the PowerPoint presentation as presented on the night.
Perhaps if the press had actually assisted and engaged in such a point of public interest as requested. The public meetings might have been even better attended resulting in a more open forum.
I personally apologised to both councillors on the night of the event and followed up with an email apology on behalf of the event organisers as shown below out of respect for elected officials.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello to you both,
I just wanted to reiterate my apology for some of the comments you received in the 20-minute neighbourhood meeting event you both attended.
It was never our intention for this to be a protest meeting and as I said immediately after the event, I would like to apologies for some of the comments from some of the members of the public who attended.
I don’t think some of the comments were appropriate and that is not what we were looking for as event organisers.
Unfortunately, even as a political candidate myself, we know that from time to time we do get inappropriate levels of anger aimed at us and I am sure you both understand and appreciate what it is I was trying to achieve.
I will follow up with both of you and the rest of the council in due course.
Kind regards
Mark Tunnicliff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not expect the generally bias press to appreciate or respect this position, but hope this goes some way to explain it.
We followed all safety precautions and alerted the police to the event.
All correspondents are soon to be updated with all this information and more.
This can all be found at the following link https://www.divergentparty.com/falkirk-20-minute-neighbourhoods/the-plans
(As part of our right to reply, please include this link!)
I can make myself available for a chat or any further correspondence if required.
Mark Tunnicliff
Divergent Party founder
29/08/23 on the back of this, the Falkirk Herold and The Herold based out of Galsgow but part of the same group, printed the following articles.
It is clear to me they are simply looking for a story and to try discredit us as an organisation.
What it has actually done is made more people take notice. (No such thing as bad publicity)
Not only that, but it is extremely clear they lie and mainstream media is rightly no longer a trusted source of information.
The Herold blatantly lied saying the meeting was abandoned. All 140 + people who attended will testify that wasn’t the case.
Mountain out of a mole hill springs to mind.
First up, the Falkirk Herold. Red writing is our comments only!
Heated meeting hears calls for Falkirk councillors to be 'executed'
A public meeting in Grangemouth turned hostile with calls for councillors to be “executed”.
By Kirsty Paterson, Local Democracy Reporter
Published 30th Aug 2023, 06:58 BST- 3 min read
Updated 31st Aug 2023, 21:12 BST (intresting this has been updated/amended!)
The event had been held to discuss controversial 20 minute neighbourhood plans in Falkirk Council area.
More than 140 people attended Bowhouse Community Centre on Friday evening for the event, which had been billed as “full and frank discussion” of the council’s strategy to reduce private car usage.
But things became so heated that a group who had actively promoted the evening withdrew their support for the organisers in disgust.
Councillor Siobhan Paterson said she was “disappointed and shocked” at how hostile the meeting was.
On the evening, councillors were also accused of “genocide” for allowing the introduction of 5G masts – despite the fact that the decision was not made by local members.
Falkirk District Action Group (FDAG) founder member Sharron McKean said she was so shocked by the behaviour at the meeting that her group has now withdrawn support from Falkirk Unbound, the campaign group which organised the event.
She said: “I wouldn’t call it a meeting – it was a protest. I was absolutely disgusted at the way the councillors were treated – they were thrown to the wolves.”
Sharron says FDAG will continue to seek answers around 20-minute neighbourhoods and campaign on other issues but they will no longer work with Falkirk Unbound.
Councillor Siobhan Paterson (Labour) and Cllr James Bundy (Conservative) accepted the invitation to attend as they were keen to hear people’s views.
But Ms Paterson said she was shocked when she was shouted down and called a “fascist” for her views.
After the meeting, Ms Paterson said she was “disappointed and shocked” at how hostile the event had been.
She said: “There absolutely is an appetite to know more about 20-minute neighbourhoods because there are still a lot of unknowns. I was optimistic about the meeting but disappointed with how things went and at the level of aggression that went unchallenged.”
She added: “Given what happened to Jo Cox and David Amess [MPs who were killed while carrying out public duties] threats of violence are not acceptable.
“They are real examples of the dangers of that kind of rhetoric. It shouldn’t be taken lightly – it should be challenged.”
Councillor Bundy said: “When the active travel strategy was being discussed by council, I raised concerns about the council adopting anti-car rhetoric and I stand by that.
“But the conduct of the meeting on Friday is not a way to convince people that cars still have a part to play in Falkirk’s future.”
One of the organisers was Mark Tunnicliff, who used the meeting to promote his own political party, the Divergent Party.
After the meeting, he apologised to the two councillors for the remarks made.
Mr Tunnicliff said: “Unfortunately, this wasn’t the open forum to hear all views we intended it to be, and it certainly wasn’t any of the organisers intention or I believe our fault that two or three of those that attended simply couldn’t seem to control what they said or the way they came across.
“Two comments in the two-hour long discussion were in particular uncalled for and not something event organisers either expected or condoned.
“However, to suggest that such comments got loud applause is inaccurate.
“It is also inaccurate that the councillors weren’t allowed to speak. Each had opening statements and conversed throughout the event.”
Breaking this down a little provides more clarity then the story they are trying to push here.
We still aren’t and possibly never will be, sure why Sharron from FDAG withdrew support from Falkirk Unbound. She must feel we are (including herself?!) as organisers somehow at fault for public behaviour.
The reason people got angry with Siobhan Patterson was her letting everyone know she “only skimmed the Active Travel Strategy” before approving it.
Clearly councillors are expected to scrutinise documents such as this and ask questions appropriately.
Not only that, but the statement about execution was, as I heard it, “You councillors are bloody useless, you should all be executed.”
I think it is clear this was a silly generic throw away comment, not to be taken seriously, but a demonstration of pure frustration.
That being said, it wasn’t the correct, right and proper thing to say, and out of respect as the organiser for elected representatives, I did apologies immediately at the end of the meeting.
Divergent party is described as a potential political party and is not yet a registered political party, so they also got that wrong. Hopefully register early next year in 2024.
The reporter Kirsty Paterson also refused to respect my full right to reply by not adding as requested this website link.
But it gets a little worse when reporter Jody Harrison and Gabriel McKay report on this from the Herrold as shown below, stating a complete lie that the meeting was abandoned. Also it wasn’t a “Town planning meeting” and 20-minnute Neighbourhoods is what the Council call them. So what is with the “So called?”
On the back of this extremely poor reporting, they decided to run a poll. Response was as shown below, as if we needed to prove our point!
29/08/23 I also sent the following email to all Falkirk Councillors about the above Freedom of information request. In copy was the FOI response and the last letter from Fiona Hyssop.
From: FalkirkUnbound@outlook.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 10:51 PM
To: david.aitchison@falkirk.gov.uk; stacey.devine@falkirk.gov.uk; ann.ritchie@falkirk.gov.uk; david.balfour@falkirk.gov.uk; alan.nimmo@falkirk.gov.uk; robert.spears@falkirk.gov.uk; fiona.collie@falkirk.gov.uk; paul.garner@falkirk.gov.uk; alf.kelly@falkirk.gov.uk; brian.mccabe@falkirk.gov.uk; gary.bouse@falkirk.gov.uk; margaret.anslow@falkirk.gov.uk; jim.flynn@falkirk.gov.uk; laura.murtagh@falkirk.gov.uk; william.buchanan@falkirk.gov.uk; bryan.deakin@falkirk.gov.uk; jack.redmond@falkirk.gov.uk; robert.bissett@falkirk.gov.uk; james.bundy@falkirk.gov.uk; cecil.meiklejohn@falkirk.gov.uk; iain.sinclair@falkirk.gov.uk; lorna.binnie@falkirk.gov.uk; euan.stainbank@falkirk.gov.uk; sarah.patrick@falkirk.gov.uk
Subject: FW: Freedom of Information Request 106283: Local Transport Strategy/Active Travel Strategy Consultation
Good evening all,
The attached document is a letter in response to the 7 questions posed to the Scottish Government via our local MSP Michelle Thomson.
In summary,
I would like you all to revisit this strategy and note that it is clearly not a devolved government requirement to implement 20 minute neighbourhoods. Where has this initiative come from?
The “extensive consultation” done on this was as shown in the FOI from Falkirk council below.
I certainly would not call this;
A. A complete consultation. The questions do not plainly ask if this is a good or bad idea, and so responses for the positive/negative are not easily or even possible to define.
B. An “Extensive consultation”. With a population of 160,000 +, and a consultation of 732 people (not all positive as I know at least 3 of the respondents) + a few small groups. I have no idea how anyone can call this “extensive!”
The 7 questions.
1. No fines will be implemented as part of any of the 20-minute neighbourhoods implementation in Falkirk. At this point or at any other in the next ten years covering the full strategy timeline.
2. You will not reduce road capacity or freedom of movement for private vehicles, including parking and restrictions on travel amounts. (plans say otherwise!)
3. The cost of the implementation will not be prioritised over people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. (IE, nobody, especially vulnerable families, will be struggling with the cost of living in Falkirk before any further money is spent on this. My belief is this is basic prioritisation of public money.)
4. In your letter it states, “Local Authorities are encouraged to develop their own local active travel strategies”. Is it your belief this isn’t a requirement?
5. Please confirm what the Scottish government will be spending on all areas of implementation of 20-minute neighbourhoods?
6. When implemented across Scotland, what global temperature reduction per year or overall will be the result of this spend?
7 The route map states the reduction to 2030. However, in your first letter it seems to suggest further reductions may be required in the future. Plan to reach net zero by 2045. What are, if any, the plans for transport after 2030 to meet your 2045 targets?
It would seem these questions are more appropriate for the Falkirk Council and the response thus far has been inadequate.
I would like to now reflect that the Petition to holt this strategy is at 806. More than your extensive consultation that weren’t all positive responses.
On the back of this, I would like to call on Falkirk Council to revisit this strategy before placing a requirement for a business case on Public Contracts Scotland.
The strategy is not fit for purpose and lager majority of the people of Falkirk in comparison with your “extensive consultation” have spoken!
We had 140 people attend our public meeting in Grangmouth last Friday (On a very wet evening!) and we have many more engaging with us on this.
Many thanks go out to Independent councillor Robert Spears, Labour councillor Siobhan Paterson and Conservative councillor James Bundy for attending this difficult event.
It certainly was disappointing no members of the SNP attended and at least two of the attendees that are currently members of the SNP were not impressed.
The next event will be online. This will enable more control and have a clear agenda.
Once again, you will all receive an invite.
Regards
Mark Tunnicliff
Member of Falkirk Unbound
& Founder of Divergent party