Some ideas for a better consultation

>> Your chance to contribute: tell us what your think on Clapham Junction station redevelopment

Author: Cyril Richert

We have often highlighted the issues with the lack of consultation in planning decisions:

  • Redevelopment of CJ station (twin towers CJ): artificial support orchestrated by the developers.
  • Hotel scheme 2009: insufficient consultation from the developers for the size of the proposed development.
  • Consultation on the SSAD document (the detail vision of the council policy for the next 15 years): the Council missed the deadline for Brightside, according the planning officer and therefore only advertised the consultation in the local Guardian than most don’t get/don’t read. A meeting was only organised 1 week before the end of the consultation period by the Putney Society to explain the implication of the new plans and at that date the number of different representations was only a couple of dozens, as we were told.

The Putney Society sent a formal letter of complaint to WBC (probably the first time it happened!) in relation to “missing” residents/groups comments on this latest consultation. This included the CJAG’s own comments addressed to Martin Howell, as he encouraged us to do so during his presentation meeting (he contacted us since then and the issue was fixed).

You can read the full letter of the Putney Society HERE. In 3 small and simple paragraphs on 1 page + 7 lines (including signature) the Society explains that:

  1. Because individuals’ comments are broken up under “consultation points” in the system used by the Council for their planning strategy consultation, it is almost impossible to see how many contributions have been received and the overall context of a submission. In addition the portal had technical failures which meant that access was denied to parts of the system until pointed out by a constituent and Putney Society member.
  2. Some representations made by groups or individuals were missing.

You may think that a sensible answer would have been to apologise for the mistake, promise to do the best for the future, and also think about ways of improving the system, welcoming comments and views.

Actually it triggered a 3 page response from the borough planner, Tony McDonald! (click on images below to open it).

He first reminds us that the original consultation was meant to end on the 5th February, then extended to the 16th. It is useful here to remember that the planning officer told us previously that by the 29th January 2010, only 20 (as I heard, but the Putney Society told me 38) were received. The CJAG submitted on the deadline, Feb 5th. Therefore I don’t know if we need to understand that the Council made a favour in extending the consultation, or that the poor level of responses due to the lack of publicity lead to the change of dates.

At the end of page 2 of the letter (after 5 paragraphs explaining the process) we understand that the Council received in total responses from 168 different parties. Keep in mind that from the 11th Dec 09 to 29th Jan 10 they received 20-40 letters, and more than 120 more in just the first 2 weeks of February, after the meeting organised by the Putney Society, not the Council!

In order to see how easy and transparent it is to use the Council’s consultation website, let me explain: You have 491 comments. They are broken down letters received: The CJAG submission is broken down in 6 different contributions; the Putney Society submissions is broken down into 16 different comments; English Heritage: 23; Justine Greening: 7…etc. I found 161 distinct contributors. How to do that? Copy the full list from the Council’s website into Excel. Then select the range where the duplicates are (Consultee). Go to data, Advanced Filter, select “Copy to new location“, leave the “Critiera” field empty, and make sure you have checked “Unique Entries Only“. You see?

To be fair, the words “I apologise” arrived on page 3 of the letter, on the 15th paragraphs (of 17).

In our joint statement on tall buildings that we submitted in September 2009 along with the Wandsworth Society, the Putney Society and the Battersea Society we wrote:

Appropriate publicity should be agreed with Council Members and officials at the pre-application stage and should use images which demonstrably reflect the true appearance, height and mass of the development measurable against neighbouring buildings.

In the last planning forum (November 2009), I raised again the question and reported:

As it was said that the Council rely on the local newspaper to publicised the application, I suggested that Brightside could be used for – let say 1/2 page – informing on current/forthcoming major  application. It was eventually said that it is up to the editor to decide what place to consider, beside a problem with time-scale for publishing information (the period of consultation is usually 2 weeks!). Surely for major development the consultation last several months and there should be plenty of time.

Conclusion of the Council Officer: it is as good as it is, nothing more will be done (no room for improvement!) Ah, I forgot: in the meeting in April, Tim Cronin said: “”if you register on the planning portal, you will be able to log-in and access information on any change of policy“. Therefore you will appreciate the current answer on the website:

Service Update
The ‘Register Area of Interest’ web pages are temporarily unavailable.

Should we launch a campaign to have the right of being properly informed? I will definitely follow up on this topic.

As the Putney Society said, it is very unsatisfactory for engaged members of the public to be confronted with the above issues and the transparency of some process may be a basis for the ultimate outcome of the consultation to be challenged.

To finish with a more positive ton, I would say that…. it could be worse (apparently Southwark Council previous administration used to pre-empt predictable objections and present local people with a fait accompli by adopting policies that nobody new about). But that does not mean that there shouldn’t be any effort made for improving the current situation.

Actually, talking about consultation, don’t forget to tell us what your think on Clapham Junction station redevelopment and send us your contribution.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Some ideas for a better consultation

  1. You have returned to the subject of the first planning application for the hotel saying quite incorrectly that there was a lack of consultation by the developers. In point of fact the following consultations took place before the scheme was finalised and the design evolved during the consultations:

    Leaflet drop to local residential and commercial properties
    Two open events at the building
    Meetings with council officer and councillors
    Meetings with GLA and English Heritage
    Presentation at open and advertised meeting of the Clapham Junction Town Centre Partnership
    Press releases
    Meetings with adjacent owners

    Very few adverse comments were received during the consultations and the scheme was pursued on that basis and because at the time council and regional policies pointed the way towards tall buildings at Clapham Junction.

    Had very adverse comments been made quite honestly the application would not have been made on the basis that it was. As a result a great deal of time, effort, money and goodwill was lost. My own view is that the hotel application came in about the time of the station one and that one attracted a campaign and the rest is history.

    My advice to clients is always that full consultations are done as in that way local issues can be determined in advance of applications, and that is exactly what was done with the first application for the hotel. Perhaps my biggest memory of the CJTCP meeting was someone I didn’t know coming up to me after the presentation saying “Fantastic- that’s just what we want here!”

    Not in CJ I had an interesting scheme refused recently by a split vote, following in my mind and lots of other people’s a complete change of officer opinion from support to objection, despite OVERWHELMING WRITTEN SUPPORT from virtually every single local person and organisation. There we consulted widely but the officer involved was in the end just not interested and about three years of work and waste resulted, leaving an important listed building of community importance vacant and deteriorating.

    I support consultation, but even when you do it, it doesn’t always work.

    I have some sympathy for your criticism of the consultation of recent policy proposals. As far as the SSAD proposals are concerned I had to draw those to the attention of my client who owns a significant enough site in Clapham Junction Town Centre. I would have thought that he would have picked it up as he gets post forwarded from the building which he has owned for years and is occupied, but no. It was me semi retired and living in France who picked it up!

    The documents contained some quite significant ideas which make very specific proposals include road re-alignment affecting potentially many people and businesses. Were did these ideas come from- a public debate about the future of Clapham Junction Town Centre? Not a bit of it! More like from behind the closed doors of the planning department. They tell others to consult on such matters but sometimes do not seem to do that which they advocate in such an open way.

    On comments on planning applications and the use of the council website as applicants we have encountered “general comments ” being registered as “objections” and despite numerous requests never been corrected. Late posting of comments, and late submission by objectors is also a great problem as applicants don’t sometimes have the opportunity to draw attention to mistakes or misunderstandings in objections which wrongly raise hares to committees.

    As the general public and local groups get more involved, and why not, they are experiencing some of the things that applicants, and their advisors, have to put up with on a daily basis. Unfortunately one has experienced rudeness, indifference, hostility, duplicity, persistently unanswered letters, phone calls and emails, lack of attendance at meetings, advice given but changed, design advice given by people with no design qualification or experience and scant knowledge, slander (yes – once- ehich resulted in the “resignation” of the officer). I should emphasise that the list could go on and covers experience across the country but some of it has been in Wandsworth!

    In the 90s I was working hard on establishing a Partnership which existed in Wandsworth Town Centre for ten years and had some success and credibility. Since then I think things have deteriorated not just there and I have been very recently in touch with the current Wandsworth Town Centre Partnership outlining my thoughts. I believe that they have themselves been concerned and obviously the failure of the Young’s scheme is a massive blow to the local process and community.

    I have always been involved in community work although I also firmly believe in the involvent of business and investors in the debate. At the moment I do believe that there needs to be an initiative to revive the concept of local partnerships, which need to be more open, and these can be used to build the confidence which will in turn generate the investment.

  2. You have returned to the subject of the first planning application for the hotel saying quite incorrectly that there was a lack of consultation by the developers. In point of fact the following consultations took place before the scheme was finalised and the design evolved during the consultations:

    Leaflet drop to local residential and commercial properties
    Two open events at the building
    Meetings with council officer and councillors
    Meetings with GLA and English Heritage
    Presentation at open and advertised meeting of the Clapham Junction Town Centre Partnership
    Press releases
    Meetings with adjacent owners

    Very few adverse comments were received during the consultations and the scheme was pursued on that basis and because at the time council and regional policies pointed the way towards tall buildings at Clapham Junction.

    Had very adverse comments been made quite honestly the application would not have been made on the basis that it was. As a result a great deal of time, effort, money and goodwill was lost. My own view is that the hotel application came in about the time of the station one and that one attracted a campaign and the rest is history.

    I tried to post more but your website would not let me- so these things are not infallible!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s