North Tyneside Green Party’s Manifesto for Community Well-Being¹ identifies three main challenges affecting our lives: the Climate Emergency, the environmental crisis, and social inequality. It emphasises the need for increased democratic activity and greater transparency in Council decision-making to bring about action in these areas.

Some of the key commitments include working towards a net zero target emissions goal by 2030 by making all housing and buildings energy efficient; establishing a local food network; ensuring that North Tyneside council always pays a living wage to staff and contractors; keeping wealth created locally within North Tyneside and benefiting the community; and building more council homes. This is supported by a pledge to improve and expand local democracy through more robust engagement and the introduction of more participatory decision-making models.

In addition, the Greens will urge the council to examine best practices from other councils and continue their campaign to get North Tyneside Council to use all available resources, such as the Climate Scorecards² from Climate Emergency UK, which the local Labour council has so far refused to engage with.

“We are eagerly anticipating the local elections, and this manifesto outlines our main priorities. Greens recognise that climate and biodiversity emergencies are closely linked with social justice and that it is possible to implement Green solutions which also reduce inequality.”

Martin Osborne, Local Party Coordinator

“We understand that there are many issues concerning the residents of North Tyneside. Talking to voters in Whitley Bay North, I know that many want to see more collective initiatives to address these problems. Our manifesto highlights the key areas that all Green councillors elected would focus on to bring about change. I aim to fulfil these commitments after the upcoming local elections.”

Alan Steele, lead candidate for Whitley Bay North

Manifesto for Community Well-Being underpins a record number of candidates standing for the party³ in the North Tyneside 2024 elections , following strong performance last year⁴.

1. Full Manifesto: https://northtyneside.greenparty.org.uk/manifesto/ ↩︎
2. Council Climate Action Scorecards measure actual completed action towards net zero from all UK councils: https://councilclimatescorecards.uk/councils/north-tyneside-metropolitan-borough-council/ ↩︎
3. https://northtyneside.greenparty.org.uk/greens-salvage-democracy-for-north-tyneside-2024/ ↩︎
4. In the 2023 local elections, North Tyneside Green Party attracted 10% of the vote and stood candidates in every ward for the first time. ↩︎

The post North Tyneside Greens launch ‘Manifesto for Community Well-Being’ appeared first on North Tyneside Green Party.

The record standing comes as the Local Government Boundary Commission revised the ward boundaries, resulting in all 60 seats being up for election for the first time in 20 years¹. The local party has gone from strength to strength in recent years, growing in members, fielding more candidates and attracting more votes over each of the past several elections.

“We are fielding our strongest set of candidates to date, and are proud to be the only party offering every elector in North Tyneside an alternative. Last year Greens achieved over 10% of the total vote across the borough and we are looking to build on that success this year. North Tyneside Green Party are increasingly becoming the only alternative to Labour, who have traditionally maintained control of politics in North Tyneside. We are looking forward to a strong result and electing the first Green councillors on North Tyneside.”

Ian Appleby, Elections Officer

However, with the local Conservatives and Lib Dems in long term decline, there is a shortage of other choices for voters, with neither managing to offer a single candidate for every ward².  As local democracy struggles, several results are in default, with Labour already having won seats in Battle Hill, Killingworth and Campdown a week before the first postal ballots can be cast.  In total 4 seats have already gone to Labour; without the strong showing of Green candidates that number would be 17, and some wards would have no choice at all.

“I’m proud to be standing as the lead candidate for Whitley Bay North, residents are glad we’re here, and we have had another great reception on the doorsteps in Whitley Bay North. In the last three elections for the Whitley Bay ward, around one in every three voters voted for me and with new boundaries this year, there is more opportunity for voters to vote Green. I’m working hard to persuade the electors to give me their vote.“

Alan Steele, lead candidate for Whitley Bay North

Greens will be campaigning throughout April and would encourage anyone who wants to hear more or who wants to get involved to contact the local party through the email contact@northtyneside.greenparty.org.uk or join the party. 

1. The Local Government Boundary Commission (LGBC) reviewed the ward boundaries for North Tyneside during 2022-23 and published the final ward boundaries towards the end of 2023. This includes several wards which are similar to the previous boundaries albeit with slight modifications, some wards which have been merged, but there are also more significant changes to other areas. ↩︎
2. There are 149 candidates standing in North Tyneside on 2nd May 2024: Labour: 60; Green: 35; Conservative 26; Others: 28. See Council Election notices ↩︎

The post Greens salvage democracy for North Tyneside thanks to largest local election campaign yet appeared first on North Tyneside Green Party.

Green Party activist, Richard Smithson, who was at the meeting said “This Labour dominated council clearly can’t be trusted on environmental issues and a dangerous precedent has been set for further development of Greenfield sites in the Borough”

The post Planning permission granted for greenfield site appeared first on North Tyneside Green Party.

A planning permission request has been submitted to North Tyneside Council for the building of a large two storey medical centre on an area of green open space on Newstead Drive in Monkseaton, known as Pocket Park. It is a recognised wildlife corridor, much valued by local residents and used regularly for a variety of recreational purposes. The development contravenes national and local guidelines for the protection of green infrastructure.

The ‘ Save Pocket Park ‘ group has been set up to challenge the scheme and a committee member said ” the submission of theses plans has caused unrest and outrage in the local community but only made us more determined to oppose them and furthermore, we don’t believe that alternative solutions have been adequately explored “

Green party activist Richard Smithson said ” the approval of this development will set a dangerous precedent for similar projects elsewhere in the borough further reducing our urban green spaces”

Anyone wishing to comment on (or object to) the scheme can do so through North Tyneside Council Planning/Public Access ref no. 23/01265/FUL

The post Update to Greenfield site under threat appeared first on North Tyneside Green Party.

It is currently under threat from development through the construction of a large two storey medical centre with adjacent car park. The ‘Save Pocket Park’ group was formed by local residents around nine months ago to oppose the loss of this green space.

On Sunday 3rd September the inaugural Pocket Park Community Fete was held with a variety of stalls and musical entertainment.

Green Party activist, Richard Smithson attended and spoke to one of the team of organisers, who said “whilst we sympathise with the need for good medical facilities, according to the Briefing note published 14th July 2022 by North Tyneside Council (NTC) 20 possible sites were identified, reviewed and rejected in the vicinity of the existing practice.

The council were approached in March 2022 to sell part of the park to a developer, but it was rejected, we expect a resubmission any time now.”

The team of campaigners are compiling a petition objecting to the development, details can be obtained from Savepocketpark2023@gmail.com.

Richard said ‘ North Tyneside Green Party supports community groups such as ‘Save Pocket Park’ and allowing development in this green field site might be the best option for the practice, but not for the local residents, the environment and biodiversity’

The post Greenfield site under threat appeared first on North Tyneside Green Party.

The problems with the current ferry landing, and plans to relocate further downstream, have been known for a while now after Nexus, who run the ferry service, revealed plans after storms had damaged the landing back in Nov 2019. Since then, Greens are concerned that plans have not been matched with the urgency required.

Funding has been available for the project and North Tyneside Council praised the “major funding boost” as far back as January 2021 when they stated that their successful bid to the Getting Building Fund would “help secure the long-term future of this important service”. However, in July 2022 it was announced that the funding was “lost” as they were not able to deliver the project in the short timescales required. Although this attempts to deflect blame on this, Nexus did not even submit a planning application for the project until August 2022, showing that the project was never ready to capitalise on the Getting Building Fund which required projects to be “shovel-ready“. Greens are extremely concerned that the public have been badly misled over the potential for funding, receiving false reassurances that the project was in hand, when it was always unlikely that the project would be delivered in time, and that there has been a lack of proper scrutiny on this. 

Greens also have concerns about why the current ferry landing has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that it is now only usable for another two years. The jetty was installed less than 20 years ago and begs the question why it is in such a state after a relatively short period of time, as well as where the regular maintenance of this infrastructure has been, and why this has not been effective.  

Finally, this makes a mockery of the commitment by the council and North East Combined Authority Joint Transport Committee to support active travel, something they have recently talked up with their new Active Travel Strategy, and key to their Making the Right Travel Choice Strategy, which encourages people to use public transport and active travel wherever possible. Also, North Tyneside Council recently agreed their North Tyneside Cycling Strategy which aims to “improve connectivity between cycling and other forms of transport, making it easier to cycle as part of a longer journey and multi modal trips” with explicit mention of the ferry as “a valuable link in the public transport network“. The ferry remains popular and is used by pedestrians and cyclists of all ages but the loss of the service will be massively detrimental to all these strategies. 

Alan Steele, local Green Party campaigner in North Tyneside says “We are very concerned that such a vital transport link is now in jeopardy and that local politicians have stated that if the ferry service is lost it will never return. It seems that plans for moving the ferry landing downstream have been in the offing for several years now, and that we have been given false reassurance from Nexus and others, and we urge all involved to get around the table to sort this mess out. We know that we can’t rely on the government to give funding and so there must be a local solution available. We simply cannot lose the ferry service and must get this sorted with or without government funding.”

Leader of the Opposition on South Tyneside Council and Green Party councillor for Beacon and Bents ward in South Shields, David Francis said, “The ferry is a lifeline for people on both sides of the river. To lose it could potentially devastate an already struggling local economy. As South Tyneside Council have now unveiled their plans to transform South Shields town centre and are gearing up to welcome a state of the art new college just a few hundred yards from the ferry landing, we call on the lead cabinet member for transport, Cllr Margaret Meling, and the Labour-run council here in South Tyneside to do the right thing for our community and pull out all the stops to save this historic and precious service. Not only is the ferry vital for commuters and students, losing it will also have a huge impact on our environment. Forcing pedestrians and cyclists back into cars will threaten air quality and worsen congestion. Local leaders should be doing all they can to protect and improve local active travel and public transport infrastructure, not allow it to deteriorate and disappear”

The post Greens express concern over potential loss of ferry landing appeared first on North Tyneside Green Party.

ROW/3281308 – North Tyneside Council (Borough Road Bridge, North Shields) Public Footpath Stopping Up Order 2021

Final Submission from North Tyneside Green Party

Based on our original submission and evidence presented during the enquiry our final comments are as follows:

1.  The removal of the PROW (Public Right Of Way) undermines NTC policies

There was no challenge to our argument that removal of the PROW over Borough Rd bridge undermines NTC’s policies in relation to their Carbon net-zero target 2030,  Heath & Wellbeing and Transport by sending the message to all residents that it is not serious about its targets – or at least not as they relate to some of the most disadvantaged communities in the borough.In order to meet the borough net zero target NTC has to rely on widespread behaviour change  amongst its residents because the Council itself only generates 2% of carbon emissions, and transport within the borough – including private cars – contributes over one third. The Council has already embarked upon some ‘nudging’ behaviour change by poster campaigns in relation to encouraging people to use re-usable coffee mugs and exhorting us to have a ‘green’ Christmas. I don’t know, but expect, that a future campaign will focus on ‘active travel’ in order to encourage residents to use their feet, bicycles or public transport instead of their cars.  The removal of this PROW will call into question the Council’s commitment to encouraging and providing the infrastructure for this.The NTC Health & Wellbeing policy commits to developing the infrastructure across the borough to encourage and enable more ‘active travel’. Removing this PROW removes important – and valued by local residents and the wider walking and cycling community – infrastructure.In relation to the alternative Council provision, the pedestrian way across Borough Road, the Council asserts that traffic on the road is quite low and therefore does not present a deterrent in the form of either safety or carbon emissions.  However it seems that the Council has not done any traffic modelling about the car use from the planned 800 new homes to be built on Smiths Docks which is sited immediately to the west of the ferry landing and the footpath leading to the PROW across Borough Road.  Our contention is that residents from this area are unlikely to use their cars to get to North Shields town centre (very limited parking being one reason) but using the footpath which crosses the bridge would be an attractive and more healthy way to get there.  If residents, especially families, want to get to the coast eg Tynemouth, Cullercoats or Whitley Bay they are likely to use their cars because of the distance; if they want to do a big shop at a supermarket or go further north they are also likely to use their cars; and in both cases are likely to use Borough Road as the most direct route.  This will increase the traffic on Borough Road, making the pedestrian crossing less safe and more subject to carbon emissions.   On the other  hand, the bridge over Borough Road provides an attractive route by bicycle or foot from Smiths Docks to North Shields town centre for shopping, a possibility the Council does not seem to have considered.Arising from the evidence presented at the Enquiry we wish to add further comments:

2. The consultation produced a substantial rejection of the proposal to remove the bridge and PROW – a result ignored by the Council.

The area to which households were sent letters informing residents of the intention of the Council to remove the bridge included a substantial number of houses to the north of Prudhoe Terrace and Saville Street. Residents living in this area would have no reason to use the bridge to access the amenities in North Shields eg the metro, the library, banks, shops and cafes because these are immediately to the east of where they live, there is no need to head south first. The Council says it distributed letters to 900 households; of these at least 300 are in this area north of Prudhoe Terrace and Saville Street.  Hence only 600 of these households would be affected by the removal of the bridge.Neither of the consultation venues were within the area affected by the demolition of the bridge. One was to the west of the area, one to the east in North Shields, neither of them less than a half kilometre away from households affected. The consultation was held in the first week of December. No one remembers what the weather was like on that day, but it is likely to have been cold, perhaps wet too. In spite of the distance and probably inclement weather, a significant number of residents did presumably attend the consultation resulting in 52 responses.The Council maintains that the number of these 52 responses was low and although the large majority of them opposed the removal of the bridge, they did not constitute sufficient opposition to give the Council reason to consider alternatives. Given that only 600 of the households informed of the Council’s intention would be affected by the removal of the bridge a response of 52 comprises approximately 7% of households – a level of response which is high especially in an area like this which is one of the most disadvantaged in the borough. (See the submission from Alistair Young for information on this).  The Council compared this response to that of the proposed development at Tynemouth metro, but as it was pointed out to them during the hearing the residents of the Tynemouth area are some of the most well off in the borough and well versed in expressing their views to the Council.  

3. The Council suggests that there will be a net gain of benefit to local residents by using the money it would save, by demolishing the bridge/PROW, in the new North Shields Conservation Area – but this development is aimed at attracting new and better off residents and visitors, not the local communities

Several local residents gave heart-felt testimony to the importance of the bridge/PROW to their daily lives, using it for either walking or cycling sometimes both, for daily business reasons as well as recreation.  Several local residents expressed the view that the Council neglected their area and ignored their concerns around for example the maintenance of the bridge and its surroundings.  The bridge was seen as a local asset, a contributor to the quality of their lives.

The Council argued that the improvements to the North Shields Town Centre and access to the Fish Quay would be of benefit to local residents.  However none of the residents giving evidence supported this view.  On the contrary a certain amount  of scepticism, resentment even, was expressed about so much money being spent there while their one asset – the bridge – was being taken away.

4. The merits of the case

It is our contention that the merits of the case have to be considered at 3 levels: the advantages/disadvantages to the local residents, to the wider community of people most likely to use the PROW, ie walkers and cyclists, and to the wider community of the borough.

• Local residents.Quite a few local residents attended the enquiry and submitted evidence to it, either verbally or in writing.  Without exception they objected to the removal of the PROW for reasons which included:
• west-east accessibility into North Shields Town Centre and the ferry via a relatively flat path – particularly important for people with mobility difficulties;
• the fine view of the river from the bridge and continuing along Yeoman Street – important in lifting spirits when life is hard;
• the importance of the bridge as a heritage asset in relation to both seafaring and ship building, reminding people of the history of North Shields and the part their families played in it, contributing to their pride in place.
• The wider walking and cycling community.In addition to the local residents who used the bridge regularly as walkers or cyclists there were several others who lived outside the immediate area who gave evidence at the enquiry.  
• The residents of the borough. North Tyneside Council is committed to reducing the borough’s carbon emissions to net zero by 2030. It produces only 2% of the emissions itself, so it has to rely on the residents and employers of the borough to reduce their collective emissions substantially in the next 7 years.

The alternative route provided by the Council, the pedestrian crossing across Borough Road,  was not considered to be an adequate or comparable replacement for the bridge. It involves inclines, traffic and a longer distance.  The argument that improvements to North Shields town centre would be of benefit to the local residents were dismissed as marginal.In summary, local residents view the bridge as a local asset and its removal would be a detriment to their quality of life which the pedestrian crossing and trees and planters in North Shields shopping centre would not replace.They pointed out the importance of the bridge as part of longer walking and cycling routes, taken individually and by groups, because it gave access to the fine views over the river. Without the bridge cyclists and walkers would have to negotiate the steep slope and traffic on Borough Road. The alternative route along which the national Cycling Route now goes is along Clive Street which local residents call The Canyon (evidence Maurice King, RAYS)  because of the high buildings on one side blocking views of the river and the wall and bank and on the other – not a visually attractive route.North Tyneside Council itself recognises the value of the bridge in one of its heritage walks – the Robert Westall Walk, advertised on its website. The route takes you into Tennyson Terrace and across the bridge onto Yeoman Street, with a fine photograph of the river taken from the bridge in the leaflet.Approximately one third of these emissions are produced by cars and other vehicles.  The Council has a number of strategies in place which complement their net-zero strategy, including those relating to transport and health & wellbeing. Taken together the Council message is: leave your cars behind to save on carbon emissions,  and use your feet and bicycles to get around and improve your health and wellbeing at the same time.  It is committed to increasing local infrastructure to encourage this.The Council has started a poster campaign to raise awareness of climate change issues as part of its strategy to encourage the changes in behaviour which are needed to get residents to reduce their carbon emissions.  Encouraging ‘active transport’ is very likely to be included in this campaign.  Ideally residents from all parts of the borough will be looking for attractive routes to walk and cycle as a consequence.  North Shields and the Fish Quay is being redeveloped to attract more visitors.  The route along the river via Yeoman Street and the bridge could  be advertised as part of a walking or cycling trip there. The route is a very attractive one  – as long as the bridge remains as the essential piece of infrastructure allowing people to enjoy the views over the river and avoid the traffic and slope of Borough Road.  Removing the bridge goes against the Health & Wellbeing strategy of increasing infrastructure to encourage walking and cycling and sends a very negative message to residents that it is not serious about their policies.

5. Conclusion

The removal of the Public Right Of Way over the Borough Road bridge will impact negatively on the lives of local residents, reduce the attraction of the path over the bridge for walkers and cyclists and undermine North Tyneside Council policies to encourage ‘active travel’ as part of their target of zero net carbon by 2030.  The pedestrian crossing over Borough Road provided by the Council as an alternative route is longer and involves slopes and traffic and therefore in no way substitutes adequately for the loss of the current amenity.  The Council’s application to remove the public footpath over the bridge should therefore be refused on the merits of the case.

The post Borough Road Bridge enquiry appeared first on North Tyneside Green Party.

The network is made of up 120+ groups and organisations including cities, towns and villages, community groups, theatres, libraries and schools. In order to become part of the network there is an application process which involves putting in place policies and practices which promote a welcoming environment for people seeking safety.

A meeting was held recently in Wallsend, organised by Asylum Matters, to discuss how North Tyneside Council could become part of this network. The meeting was attended by various local groups committed to the principles of welcome and inclusion and several schools in North Tyneside have expressed an interest in becoming Schools of Sanctuary.

North Tyneside has become home to many refugees and asylum seekers over recent years and it was felt that becoming part of the network was the next step for the Council.

Newcastle, Northumberland, Gateshead and other nearby local authorities are already part of this network.

Find out more about City of Sanctuary and watch this video about Schools of Sanctuary.

A separate but related initiative, led by Refugee Action, is to remove the ban on people seeking asylum here from taking paid employment.

Lift the Ban is a coalition of over 240 members, including the TUC, Unison, the CBI and churches all working to gain the right to work for people who are seeking asylum.

People seeking asylum across the UK are currently prevented from working and are forced to live on just £5.66 per day while the Government processes their claim for asylum, a process which often takes years. This pack is available with ideas about how to campaign locally on this issue.

North Tyneside Green Party supports both these campaigns and in particular would like to see the schools in the borough as well as the Council become part of the City of Sanctuary network.

The local contact for Asylum Matters can be found by getting in touch with the national organisation: info@asylummatters.org

The post Campaigns support people seeking sanctuary in North Tyneside – ‘Cities of Sanctuary’ and ‘Lift the Ban’. appeared first on North Tyneside Green Party.

Green Party member Richard, installed an air source heat pump earlier this year into their late Victorian house and are currently enjoying plenty of hot water and warmth.

Richard said ‘Our installer, Energist Solutions, carried out a heat loss survey, assessing insulation, room size and double glazing before advising on the appropriate system. We are really happy with the results.’

Although heat pumps cost more than a traditional gas boiler to install, there are government grants available which bring the cost down significantly, and there are savings to be made in subsequent running costs.

Alan Steele, Lead Campaigner in Whitley Bay said ‘While heat pumps can be expensive to install there are government grants available and, as heat pumps use electricity much more efficiently, not only can they reduce the cost of heating your home they will dramatically reduce your heating carbon emissions.’

The Green Party supports the use of heat pumps as they help to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. 

Residents with low incomes can benefit from access to North Tyneside Council’s ‘Green Homes Grant’ scheme, which offers homeowners up to £10,000 to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. 

You can also access more information on heat pumps, their suitability, and finding an installer.

Richard has very kindly offered to speak to local people who might be interested in installing a heat pump. Contact Alan Steele on alan.steele@northtyneside.greenparty.org.uk to arrange a chat with Richard.

The post Are heat pumps a realistic option in Whitley Bay? appeared first on North Tyneside Green Party.

In May this year, NTGP was delighted to share the news that work was to begin on the proposal, supported by £3.5m from the Department for Transport’s Active Travel Fund (ATF). The plan was for a permanent, segregated, unbroken two-way, safe space along the seafront between the North Shields Fish Quay and St Mary’s Lighthouse in Whitley Bay. We believe this would encourage and help people to use sustainable and active forms of travel. As well as helping with the cost-of-living crisis we believe it would be a significant step forward in the creation of a cleaner, greener borough – something the council has pledged as part of its declaration of a climate emergency.

Alan Steele, NTGP’s Whitley Bay candidate, and campaigner said ‘We have seen more people taking up active travel, cycling, wheeling and walking, as a result of the cost-of-living crisis, but for many, everyday conditions on the roads are simply not safe enough – this is one reason why the scheme is so important to me’

NTGP also encouraged the council to share the results of their 2021 consultation and communicate more openly on progress with the scheme. We would have considered this an excellent and effective way to engage with residents and communities and push for changes that are much needed in the borough. However, as the summer concluded, no work had started and no updates were available. Alan contacted Cllr Sandra Graham, Whitley Bay Councillor and Cabinet Member for the environment, to get an update. We were then informed that work was delayed and would take up to a year to complete, meaning a summer wasted.

We urge NTC to make a start now and as promised, roll out the works in a phased manner to ensure minimum disruption during busy periods.

Alan said ‘Starting now would give us a chance to experience our wonderful seafront by cycling, wheeling, and walking in increased safety and comfort. It is two years since the removal of the sunrise cycleway; we have waited far too long and further delay, when more than £3m funding has been secured, is disappointing, to say the least.’

NTGP is concerned that North Tyneside Council’s inability to deliver the scheme or spend any money on it this financial year may undermine future funding from Active Travel England. Arrangements mean that programmes of delivery will be at risk if swift approval of business cases is not forthcoming, and work start dates are pushed back. Losing grant funding would be disastrous for the borough.

NTGP will continue to ask questions, push for public engagement, and press for immediate action. Please get in touch with us with your views on this, we would like to hear from as many people as possible.

The post Sustainable Seafront Route – an opportunity lost? appeared first on North Tyneside Green Party.