Discussion Forum
Ice Cream vans in the Park

From Charlie O
Friday, 18 May 2007

Yesterday, I contacted Calderdale concerning the pollution coming from one particular ice cream van plying its trade a few metres from the entrance to the children's playground in the Park. I also made the point that even if the problem with this particular vehicle is rectified, all of the ice cream vans spew out (to my mind) unacceptable pollution.

I have received a response from a Mr. John Bates saying that he will request that the company in question gets the van fixed. However, I have said that since this company has a "trailer" with its own power supply (which I have seen in use in that same location) I feel he should insist that this "trailer" is the only one allowed to sell ice cream there.

If, like me, you are fed up with the pollution coming from the ice cream vans parked opposite the entrance to the children's playground, please contact the above gentlemen on john.bates@calderdale.gov.uk and request that only the trailer and power supply be allowed in the Park.

Thank you

From John Pintus
Sunday, 8 July 2007

This trader is always very pleasant, and it is good to have the opportunity of buying a treat from him. I am sure the gaz guzzling 4x4s that tear around the Calder Valley produce more pollution. Leave the guy alone to pursue an honest living and stop being so middle class!

From Charlie O
Sunday, 15 July 2007

An interesting reply.

So it's middle class to suggest that, without inhibiting the 'guy' from making money, this 'guy'(a company with several vans) uses a method it already has to reduce pollution a few metres away from a children's play area and a place through which many people walk?

If middle class is wanting to make the air many of us walk through more pleasant, you must be one of the few non-middle class people reading this Forum.

From Charlie O
Thursday, 6 September 2007

Anyone who thinks that, by their use of the (seemingly) non-polluting ice cream trailer plying its trade outside the children's playground in Calder Holmes park, Royd Ices had belatedly realised the damage they were doing to the atmosphere and the health of Hebden Bridge residents will have noticed that things are now "back to normal".

I have had the following exchange of e-mails with a Mr Martyn Summerscales at Calderdale

Yesterday, 5th of September:

“In the second half of May this year we had an exchange of e-mails concerning the pollution emanating from Royd Ices vans plying their trade from outside the children's playground in Calder Holmes Park.

For a long time there was no improvement in the situation, i.e. the polluting vans rather than the (apparently) non-polluting trailer continued to be used. Over the school summer holidays it looked like commonsense had prevailed and that Royd Ices had realised the damage it was doing to the health of the residents of Hebden Bridge. It now seems that this was just a temporary "blip" in their conscience, as we are now back to the polluting vans. The registration of the van in the park today is H 139 BCW. I have two questions:
How does Calderdale Council feel about dealing with a retailer that has such a cavalier attitude to the health of the residents of Hebden Bridge?

Will you, or will you not, instruct Royd Ices to use, without exception, the trailer instead of the polluting vans? If not, why not?


The reply:

“Following your last complaint I spoke to the owner of Royd's Ices who assured me he instructs his staff to turn off the engine whenever possible , in order to save fuel , as well as for any environmental or health considerations . He promised he would reinforce thiat message to all his staff . Obviously that did not occur or his instructions were ignored.

Our franchaise for the Ice Cream outlet in Calder Holmes Park is let on an annual basis ( 1st April until 31st March ) . At present there is nothing in the legally binding contract which stipulates what type of mobile outlet must be used . There is therefore nothing we can do until the tender is re let early next year.”

To him

"Thank you for your quick response.

Does your agreement with Royd state that you cannot specify the type of sales vehicle used, or is this not mentioned at all?

I, and many other HB residents, would be interested to know why Royd has stopped using the trailer and has reverted to the polluting van.

Can you not request that Royd reverts to the van?"

From him, today:

“There is no mention in the agreement at all, apart from it
being a " mobile unit ". We can request him to use the trailer, but ultimately its down to him, if he choses to comply or not. We will make sure some safeguards are written in next time .

I have asked Mr. Summerscales to, at least, try.

From Frank W
Saturday, 8 September 2007

Following the report by Charlie O. of his exchange of e-mails with Mr Martyn Summerscales I noticed, today, that the same ice cream van, registration number H 139 BCW, was pumping out its usual amount of pollution. I pointed out to the man inside that according to information on the Forum he had been instructed to turn off his engine whenever possible. I asked him to confirm that he had received such an instruction. He confirmed this, but would not talk to me any further and merely directed me to his boss. He also did not turn off the engine.

In the last message from Mr Summerscales, cited by Charlie O. this gentleman states that "some safeguards" are to be written into the tender/contract from the 1st of April next year. Let's hope that one of the safeguards refers to the use of the trailer.

From Frank W
Wednesday, 12 September 2007

For anyone else who has noticed the oil on the ground where the ice-cream van stands, the following exchange of emails will be of interest:

to Martyn Summerscales

7th September

“When walking through the park this morning, I notice (sic) patches of oil on the ground right below the place where the vans’ engines are positioned. How wonderfully maintained the Royd Ices’ vans must be to be able to pollute twice at the same time.”

to Martyn Summerscales

Today, the 12th September

“Further to my message of the 7th regarding pollution from oil. Guess what, Surprise, Surprise, the oil stain is getting bigger. What a wonderfful (sic) company Royd Ices is. It doesn't seem to care what pollution it causes to the environment, do you care? It would be interesting for me and the rest of the HB residents to know. I intend to publish your responses on the Hebweb Forum and, if I can make it to the meeting, to raise the matter at the meeting of the Friends of Calder Park on the 24th of this month.
Will you be there?

Reply from Mr. Summerscales today

“I have requested a site meeting with the propriator (sic) . I will reply after that meeting . The Friends of Calder Holmes meetings are attended by Michael Harrop who represents Parks & Streetscene on that group .”

Get your questions ready for Mr. Harrop.

Posted by Ian M
Friday, 14 September 2007

I have to agree with John on this one. This appears to be a one man crusade against honest hard working people trying to make a living in an industry that has suffered a difficult year due to the weather.

Frank, if you are so concerened about pollution in your daily life have you considered the impact of the electricity used to fire off all these emails or the carbon footprint of your laptop? Can I assume that you use no form of transport other than your feet or a bicycle.

If pollution from vehicles is such a concern why not put your energies into getting the parking spaces on market street removed? The ammount of air pollution caused by stationary traffic which cannot pass freely due to parked cars is what concerns me. It is no coincidence that the air monitor here gives horrifying readings of pollution!

From Frank W
Tuesday, 18 September 2007

Sorry Ian,

Can you please get whoever read my piece to you to read it to you again.

I have never suggested stopping Royd Ices from operating. All I have said is that they should maintain the van properly so it does not deposit oil on the ground.

The other type of pollution could be reduced or eliminated by facilities, the trailer, which they already have.

Posted by Ian M
Wednesday, 19 September 2007

And what do think that trailer would power its freezers on Frank? Perhaps it might be a petrol generator!

Posted by Cheryl O
Wednesday, 19 September 2007

Ian M seems to be adopting the same approach to Frank W’s point as did John Pintus did to Charlie O’s remarks i.e. completely missing/deliberately ignoring the point.

Ian M seems to be saying that because Royd Ices takings will, probably, be down on previous years due to the rather bad summer we have had, they should be spared the economic inconvenience of maintaining their vans correctly.

"From a lay person's point of view, what is the legal stance? Doesn't Calderdale Council, as ‘ owner’ of the park have any responsibility regarding this ‘ nuisance’ (for Ian’s and John’s benefit this means the pollution, not the existence of Royd Ices)?"

Perhaps somebody with legal training or knowledge could answer this at the meeting next Monday.

Posted by Ian M
Thursday, 20 September 2007

The park has one of the busiest roads in Calderdale to one side and a train track on the other. Between the trains belching diesel fumes and the hundreds of cars spewing out all manor of toxins, one ice cream van in the middle isn't going to add to the problem.

Look to the main cause of the pollution in Hebden - the almost stationary traffic caused by the appaling road planning of recent years

Posted by Cheryl O
Friday, 21 September 2007


When I am walking through the park with my children and have to pass the ice-cream van I can smell the pollution, (to respond to your answer to Frank's point) I haven't noticed the same noxious smell from the generator, which Royd chose to use for a portion of the children's holidays but has now abandoned. When I am in the park I cannot smell the fumes from the trains or the road.

Posted by Charlie O
Monday, 24 September 2007

To answer the point raised by Cheryl O regarding Calderdale's legal responsibility, I have already asked Mr Martyn Summerscales this question twice, on the 10th and again on the 19th of this month.

It will (sadly) be of no surprise to many people that he has chosen to ignore the question and has not replied.

So much for the slogan on the side of Calderdale vans that '...everyone matters'.

Has he provided Mr Harrop the answer for the meeting tonight?

See also:

Friends of Calder Holmes