Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Haringey Council planning consultation event inadequate in engaging residents
The council have acknowledged the complaint and I will let you know the response to the points.
Martin
++++++++++++++
12th March 2015.
Cllr Ali Demirci, Cabinet Member for Planning
Stephen Kelly, Assistant Director for Planning
Haringey Council
Dear Cllr Demirci and Mr Kelly,
This email is a formal complaint about the planning documents consultation event which took place on Wednesday 11th March at 163 Park Lane, Tottenham N17, with an advertised time of 4-7pm.
For a number of reasons the event was inadequate in facilitating the involvement of myself and other residents in the decision-making process of the consultation. In addition, the council's administration of the event was seriously lacking.
I attended this event, arriving before the advertised start time of 4pm. The shop at 163 was closed and the shutters were down. No council officers were around and there was no sign on the shutter to suggest that the event was delayed or cancelled. Several members of the public were already waiting.
I and others went to the nearby Neighbourhood Resource Centre in case the location had changed. Staff there confirmed that the consultation event was scheduled to be in 163. They didn’t have any other information. For example, they could not say if people running the event had been delayed. Meanwhile at the venue more people started to arrive and waited on the pavement. However, because the event had still not begun by 4.15pm at least two different 'sets' of people left.
Another person walked down to the Neighbourhood Resource Centre to inquire again. We were told that the staff there had phoned Adam Hunt of the regeneration team who told them that someone would be soon be at the event venue. Council officer did arrive and opened the shutters, entering the building at 4.18pm. They then took a while in setting up. In my estimation the opening half hour of the event was lost due to the lateness of the officers.
I now outline the ten reasons for my complaint.
1. In my view being late for the advertised start of a public event was disrespectful to those residents who were there on time waiting to ask questions.
2. Even when the officers arrived there was no apology or explanation as to why they had not been on time. In fact competent staff who understand public engagement would have been early, with the space set up ready for any "early doors" arrivals. People have work, child care, and other family responsibilities and these should not be ignored or treated with disdain.
3. On arrival the officers were asked how would the meeting run and one of them made reference to it could happen 'whatever way you fancy'. This casual approach to the event might indicate a flexibility about answering residents concerns, but more suggested that they was no plan and the event was a painful chore to be got through so the box we had a public meeting could be ticked.
4. I did not see an agenda for the meeting nor a schedule of how it would be run. Nor am I aware that a monitoring form was circulated so that the council had a record of the demographic make-up of the attendees. During the event, as different people came and went, it became clear that there were residents from different parts of Tottenham and across the borough. Which is an achievement, as the 163 Park Lane venue is not the easiest place to reach by public transport.
5. I was not made aware of any printed literature being provided. There was a reference to there having been drop-in advice sessions at libraries and council offices where information was available. And of course it is all online. But this is hardly sufficient nor reasonable for people to access. Not everyone is online; nor is everyone practised in accessing information online. So printed information is required, and in languages other than English. Given that the venue is in a location where a significant number of residents are Turkish speakers, then why wasn't there provision for this?
6. I did not notice any sign-in sheet or the provision of council officer contact details so that those attending could get further information. I know there is general information on the Council’s website. But clearly, some of the residents who made an effort turn up had specific questions relating to their situation that might have required subsequent contact.
7. I did not see any feedback cards or other opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the planning documents. No council officer present appeared to be taking notes. At one point they were asked if the event was being minuted and the answer was that a minute would be written-up later. Which is not the same as a recorded note taken at the time of the meeting as it happens.
Failure by the council to formally collect the views of those present, or make a formal record of the event means that the view expressed yesterday will not be part of the evidence the council will consider in deciding how to respond to the consultation. There was not even the opportunity to comment on the administration of the event.
8. As far as I could see, not one of the officers present wore their Haringey Council ID badges. I believe this is a standard requirement when meeting the public. Some of the officers did disclose they were staff, but this is not the same as the badge being visible. But others did not.
I openly asked why they weren’t wearing their ID badges. The response ranged from 'I forgot to bring it from the office' to 'Oh yes, I should really'. Yet no badges were subsequently put on. Perhaps they didn't have the badge on their person, or were not intending to wear them?
That officers did not identify themselves in this way is not acceptable as there is a requirement for clear transparency about what staff are on duty. Not least because residents might want to approach them. To illustrate the teed for openness about who was who; during the meeting council officer Richard Truscott spoke from the floor and it was only because he was speaking in support of the planning changes that he was asked of he was in fact a council officer. He then admitted being a member of staff. However when he spoke again, people who had arrived later may not have know he is a council employee.
Cllr John Bevan arrived during the event. He was wearing his ID badge. When I made reference to officers not wearing their badges, he said it was noted and he would raise the matter too. Therefore, I have copied him in this email.
9. The whole event had an ad hoc feel to it. There was no briefing about the issues being discussed. As I recall, officers said that ‘the details were in Tottenham News' and therefore felt that was adequate and that residents had the information they needed. This was despite the fact that resident after resident said they had not had anything delivered to their homes. Or they said they'd seen a leaflet from Haringey Defend Council Housing which told them about the meeting. Officers repeatedly referred to the “housing staff” (i.e. Homes for Haringey) as having delivered the necessary leaflets/information etc. in person to each home. They persisted in repeating this even when it became obvious that Homes for Haringey staff had not adequately carried out this task.
10. It was evident that the officers present lacked detailed knowledge or understanding of the actual proposals. On several occasions residents made reference to particular parts of or details in the proposals in the face of officers challenging the truth of the statements. Only when the precise reference was provided did the officer back down, and by absence of retort accept the point was correct.
These are ten serious failing and I request a proper response to each of them.
There are two other aspects of the event that I want to put on the record, and get your comment and response to.
A. The first is that during the event three police officers turned up and spoke to protesters on the pavement outside the shop door because 'the sarge had said go there and see if Class War were there'.
It was not clear whether the council officers present had requested police presence. If indeed this is the case then it is very worrying development. The people outside behaved in an fair and considerate way. We talked to members of the public, but nobody was prevented from entering or leaving the shop. If any resident told council officers that they felt uncomfortable because of the presence or behaviour of people outside or inside the shop, that should have been communicated to them by council officer with a polite request to moderate any such behaviour. Please can you ay if any complaints about the protesters behaviour were received at the meeting or afterwards?
Personally I saw no incidents which could in any case have justified police presence. In my view, residents were exercising their democratic right to peacefully gather and talk to fellow residents. And that is not something for which council officers should request police attendance. As far as I know, everyone has the aim of making sure as much information as possible is shared and as many people as possible being able to ask questions and share their points of view.
B. The second is a request that you clarify a point which came up. Given the evident failure to give people sufficient and timely information, it is not surprising that people asked for postponement of the consultation timescales. The response from the officer in charge was that he could not do this because of the "Purdah" period before the General Election.
I do not see how this applies given that planning consultation timetables are not dependent on election cycles and can and must continue regardless of election campaigns. I do understand that it would effect election candidates and campaigners. However that should in no way affect the ability of planning officers to conduct a fair and open consultation process. I therefore ask for guidance on this. That there is indeed a legal issue and it is not simply a pretext for inaction.
The above points represent my formal complaint about the event being inadequate in facilitating the involvement of residents in the council's decision-making process. It also illustrates the council's appalling disregard for engaging with residents.
Please acknowledge this email and confirm the procedure you will now follow in responding to my complaint regarding the planning documents consultation.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Ball
Tottenham Hale resident
Tags for Forum Posts: consultation, planning, regeneration
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by JJ B on
-
Sounds like the usual way these people go about their business.
They are pushing and subsidising massive property development schemes disguising them as 'regeneration' yet the little quality of life changes and improvements to systems are put on the back burner or restricted "due to budget cuts" unless they bring economies too. And the spending on health, education and social services are being drastically cut back.
They are repeating pasts mistakes all over again and creating a system that will breed more "riots".
Why are they doing this to us?
-
Permalink Reply by Alison P on
-
I'm really shocked to read this - what ever you think about Haringey's appetite for consultation, at the very least you would hope that they would appreciate the importance of being at the right place before hand to set up. As you say, that is basic good practice. Very inept. I look forward to reading the response - do please post here.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Oh Alison, you used to be the voice of reason. What happened?
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Martin, thanks for your post.
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised by your account of the casual approach to this Consultation. Too often with Haringey, Consultations do not do what they say on the tin. Many labour under the illusion that when this public authority undertakes a public consultation, the purpose is always to consult the public.
Haringey does perform genuine consultations, where the real object is to gauge public views.
However, too often, this is not the real reason. I list what I believe are the real reasons. Consultations are made in order to:
- [attempt to] comply with the law
- be seen to consult the public
- be able to claim later on – and quote some confected evidence – that the public was consulted
- summarise views in such a way that sometimes distorts or disregards views contrary to the Council's
- act as a lightning rod for any dissent
- find, build or promote support for the Council's (single) favoured option
This last point was considered last year by no less an authority than the Supreme Court of the UK – and Haringey Council was found wanting. There is a small hope to come from this judgement that the Local Authority might mend it's ways (it dealt with a real question: a Consultation about Council Tax Benefit reduction: the Council's conduct was despicable).
Prior to the Supreme Court judgement against Haringey, what did the law say about public consultations?
The answer is reasonable and sensible. The four general principles of a lawful Consultation are listed by barrister David Wolfe here.
When considering these, one might well ask oneself, how often does LBH meet this test?
Clive Carter
Councillor
Liberal Democrat Party
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on
-
I hope change will come as a result of Martin's complaint. Doubt it though. They have so many excuses they can give - I bet they will simply say 'it was a one-off' and 'staff are being given reinforcement training' and just bat it away.
Another problem is us - if the consultations were properly run I still don't think we'd bother to contribute. We have only ourselves to blame for that and should accept it. The people who attend the consultations are in such a tiny minority that the consultations are always going to be skewed. Often it's people with time on their hands due to not working, which immediately subdivides the responders. Another big swathe are those with personal agendas - often mortgage payers who get what they want sometimes at the expense of renters (the majority). The turnout to the area forums, for example, is pathetically small and seems mainly made up of these two groups.
We can and should campaign for the consultations to be properly conducted (have any recent ones ever been?) but we also need to respond and that's the deep problem. People are disengaged.
So, if the consultation process becomes adequate, how to we get people to actually proffer their views in a representative way? One response could lie in the tech (I'm a techie!). All council tax payers have a password-protected logon to Haringey.go.uk - that's every resident.
I think we could add a 'profile' section where you could opt-in to having consultation messages about issues that affect you, you could opt to get an email. This single addition to the 'citizens account' could pave the way for voting early and voting often on a whole range of issues and thus up and broaden the consultation response rate considerably.
The Estonians vote online in political elections. Turnout was less than a third in the 2014 European Elections so I don't suppose online issue-voting in Haringey is a panacea, but it won't cost hardly anything (open source software) and could be rolled out soon. Some local authorities put an online discussion forum on the Council website to host consultation issues but I guess that's too big a step for this tech-hostile council to take?
Why not give these types of approaches a try by forming a Council Website User Group?
We could ask for a consultation about it...
-
-
Chris, it's the Council that sets the agenda here. I do not blame residents, many of whom will have experienced previous LBH "Consultations" and concluded, what's the point (in participating in the future).
Sometimes, 90% of Council Consultations feature questions – sometimes intimate questions –about the respondent, rather than about the subject in hand. This can breed cynicism.
In the long run, you may be right: ordinary residents need to engage more. However, by that I mean joining the Opposition to the status quo, and not in terms of more diligently filling out Council-constructed Consultations.
It is not that Council officers are indolent vis a vis Consultations.
It is that – without the requirement by law to consult – Council staff sometimes have no wish to engage in conduct that could serve to oppose or contradict what they intend to do.
The point I think you miss, is that in any event, Council officers do not want to undertake Consultations that might threaten self-harm, because the public could potentialy undermine what the Council wishes to do.
In support of this thesis, I would cite the evidence of Martin's post above.
-
-
Clive we neither of us know what the problem is, let alone the solution. It's very easy for us to sit here and describe what is wrong but we are not faced with the reality of managing this stuff, on which millions per year in spent in salaries alone.
I don't see how it helps for you to continuously chime in whenever there's a chance to criticise the council and pronounce grandly with an imaginary sweep of the hand that the entire problem would be solved if only they'd listen to you. I think this is part of the Cllrs 'disease' that they think they're paid to look at each situation and give an opinion on behalf of residents.
Please, save us from your opinion - you are supposed to represent us, not push your own agenda, an agenda that is inevitably Lib Dem - how could you think any other way?
And please, don't say you're big enough to be able to speak for those who do not support you politically - everything you write seems to me to be politically oriented - you're in it for votes, so please, don't forget to add the affiliation line - you've lost the right to post as an ordinary person.
You say that people 'do not want' to undertake consultations - how do you know that, exactly?
>>Sometimes, 90% of Council Consultations
This too is patent nonsense, 90% of the time :)
-
-
Sometimes, 90% of Council Consultations feature questions – sometimes intimate questions –about the respondent, rather than about the subject in hand.
Chris, sorry I didn't make this clear. I meant 90% of the content of a given Council Consultation.
100% of Consultations, as I understand it, require at least some questions about a respondent's age, race, religion etc.
I had in mind in particular, a consultation from a few years ago, about which model of Council governance residents preferred.
There was a single question about that important subject ... but more than 95% of that Consultation content featured questions about the respondent themself. It was hard to believe it was drawn up seriously or that residents should take it seriously. I drew attention to it at the time:
-
-
Thanks Clive but there are many thousands of general conclusions we can each draw from life, from what happens in consultations or simply by looking at the sky 90% of the time.
What specific changes need to happen to make consultation effective and how do you plan to bring them about?
-
-
I think we both agree that Haringey's Consultations could use improvement. Making them more effective is a big subject and I'll just produce main headings:
- Try to conform to the four general principles of a lawful Consultation (I've provided links elsewhere, several times);
- Take to heart the Supreme Court judgement against LBH last year about their unlawful consultation: in a nutshell, show alternatives (even if the Council does not favour them);
- Separate responsibility for Consultations away from the Council's PR operation (i.e. the Communications Department. Consultation by the Local Authority should not be confused with marketing. It needs to be more than clicking "Like" on a Facebook page)
- Consult less on minor things and more on the bigger things
I will continue to lobby for such changes that are unlikely to be brought about by the current administration.
-
-
These are general wishes that are almost impossible to bring about, let alone police or verify. Or do you think you'll be able to say they've taken "90% of it" to heart? Doubtless it's you who expects to pronounce as to the extent your underlings have conformed to your world view.
You want to implement policy using the general knowledge and life experience you've accumulated, as if that was all that was needed to bang heads together. This is a typical Cllr approach. You are not required to possess any particular skills as a Cllr, yet you sit as judge and jury. Your opinion trumps the practitioners on the hollow pretence that you 'represent' us.
Effectively you want to change the culture of the Civil Service without having the benefit of their many decades of collective expertise. No wonder they probably regard Cllr opinions as diversions at best.
So I think your approach is bankrupt - why do you think change hasn't arrived?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
