Haringey Council planning consultation event inadequate in engaging residents

Below is my complaint about the planning consultation event - happening on 11th March at 163 Park Lane N17 - that reminds us how the council's approach to consultation is not adequate in terms of involving residents in informed decision-making.

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