A member of KWG has sent in this impression of the recent 'consultation':
I attended a meeting on September 25th at the “Library Lab”, at Willesden Library under the impression that it was a Council “consultation” for the public. It was advertised as being “for you to share your ideas on the future of the WGCC”.
I attended a meeting on September 25th at the “Library Lab”, at Willesden Library under the impression that it was a Council “consultation” for the public. It was advertised as being “for you to share your ideas on the future of the WGCC”.
I found it was no such thing. A girl from
the “Library Lab”, who appeared to be
in charge, had a rigidly structured agenda which focused exclusively on the
development of the current proposals and wanted to exclude all discussion of
whether the public wanted these proposals in the first place.
It was made clear to her by members of the
public attending, that they would not accept her agenda for the meeting, and wished
to state their objections to the proposed scheme. Many people there had only just heard about it.
ATTEMPTED
DENIAL OF FREE SPEECH
On several occasions this person tried to
prevent residents from stating their views and from asking questions. She
appeared not to have any understanding of how a meeting advertised as a consultation
should be run in a democratic country that prides itself on free speech.
Who was this person? Is she a council
officer? If not, why was she running a public consultation meeting about Council facilities on a council owned site? What authority did this person have to try to
dictate to the public how they could make their contribution to a Borough
consultation? Was it even a proper borough consultation?
What is the Library Lab? And what is its
status in terms of the relationship between the electorate and their elected
representatives? The Brent Council website
gives no explanation. It describes the Library Lab as “a hub of local entrepreneurial activity in Willesden Green
Library Centre, .........part of the New Windows on Willesden project” telling
us that “our vision [is] to regenerate Willesden High Road and reduce
local unemployment”. Whose
vision? On whose behalf does this organisation
arrogate to itself such grandiose claims? And by what right does it
intervene in a consultation that should be between the Borough Council and the
electorate?
Council Officer Beth Kay was in attendance
still peddling mis-information. The new building will be much smaller than the
present one; the developers themselves admit this and it is clear from all the
plans. Many members of the public pointed out that library space was to be
smaller. Ms Kay now claims that because
of consultation feedback the Library space in the building has been increased
so that it will be the same size as the current provision. But since the
building footprint has not increased
that means that other facilities must be reduced. How is this an
improvement on what we already have?
TOWN
CRAMMING
I tried to raise the issue of the blocks of flats to be built on the car
park which will degrade the environment of all the residents whose houses
surround the site. This Ms Kay dismissed as a “planning matter”. It is indeed. It is a degradation of all
good planning practice which was designed to prevent town cramming and
overlooking.
PREDETERMINATION
Ms Kay’s only suggestion was that these
plans had been passed by our elected councillors. She did not seem to appreciate that such a statement amounts to
telling us that the scheme is “predetermined”.
That is illegal.
COUNCILLORS
TREAT THE ELECTORATE WITH CONTEMPT
But where were our “elected
councillors”? The room was full of
developers and their representatives. Why
were these meetings not run by the councillors? They have abysmally failed in
their obligations under Local Government Act 2000 to make themselves “accountable”
to the people. They treat the public with contempt, failing to answer any
emails, questions or anything else about this wretched scheme. They are not fit
to govern. That is why there is such widespread public anger.
ASSET
STRIPPING
As one attendee at the meeting said, the
whole scheme is nothing more than asset stripping. Far from denying this, Beth
Kay appeared to agree, as she replied
to the effect that it would not be the first time a borough council had acted
in this way. This is shameful. The Council
should remember that these assets were not secured for the people of
Brent by their initiative, or that of their predecessors, nor solely at their
expense. The Council should therefore be scrupulously careful to observe the
conditions upon which our Library was vested in them and to avoid anything
which may seem to infringe these conditions.
A
DENIAL OF CONSULTATION
These meetings have been advertised to the
public as consultations under false pretences.
In fact it was intended to allow people to “share your opinions and
suggestions” only “on the programming and functionality” of the predetermined
scheme for Willesden Green Library Centre.
Having failed to go through the proper
planning and consultation process for this “Key decision” ( a statutory
designation), the Council is still avoiding any proper public consultation on
the principle of this development and ignoring public protest. It is trying to
force the public to discuss a scheme it does not want. That is not consultation by any stretch of
the imagination. It certainly does not comply with Brent Council’s stated
commitments both in policy documents and in its constitution:
Brent
Council Constitution: “The purpose of the Constitution is to support the active
involvement of citizens in the process of local authority
decision-making;” and “create a powerful and effective means of
holding decision-makers to public account;”
Brent
Local Code Of Corporate Governance: –to ensure that stakeholders
have confidence in the decision making and management processes of the
authority, by conducting genuine consultation, providing access to full,
accurate and clear information.
Partners
for Brent Community Consultation, Engagement & Empowerment Strategy
2010 -2014: Partners for Brent will develop and put in place regular and
effective processes which enable all Brent residents to influence and control
the services and quality...........
Involve people from the outset and throughout the whole process;
New council
constitutions: guidance to English Authorities; Local
Gov Act 2000,
7.2 Key decisions which have significant effects within
the community.... will need to be identified and properly consulted on.
THE
RAPE OF A COMMUNITY
The Council’s conduct can be seen in the
context of a wider malaise afflicting the country’s institutions. From MP’s
expenses, civil servants’ abuse of government credit cards, Leveson,
Hillsborough, Rochdale – the list goes on and on and is added to almost by the week.
The Bishop of Liverpool in announcing the findings of the Hillsborough
Inquiry spoke for many of us: “It is timely for us to reconsider how people in
positions of power, whoever they may be, behave in a transparent and
accountable manner to..........win back the trust which is so vulnerable at the
moment in our society”.
No-one has been killed or injured in
Willesden, but a community feels that it is being raped and tyrannised by those
who portray themselves as public servants.
It is one more small addition to the bitter disaffection felt by the
governed for their “elected dictators”, throughout the land.
Philip Grant has sent this comment:
ReplyDeleteWhere were the Councillors? -
Although the meeting was not chaired by a member of the Council, at the 7pm session I was sitting next to Cllr. Lesley Jones (Willesden Green Ward and Executive member). I have seen her, and spoken to her, at a number of "consultation" events about the WGCC plans. I may not always agree with her, but she (at least) is making an effort to understand the views of local people.
Philip Grant
Umm, I was in communication with Cllr Lesley Jones about an issue and she did not understand my views and didn't really make enough of an effort to understand them either. I was fobbed off basically probably because she did not agree with my viewpoint. I don't call that listening, more like in one ear and out the other.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with Brent (and probably many other councils) is that there are many ways to listen and engage with residents through social media for example (discussion forum anyone?) but instead we have these consultative area meetings (or whatever they are called these days) that occur once a quarter and the attendees are not exactly a cross section of the community. The council really needs to move with the times so they can truly understand what people's views are and not those of a tiny minority. They council could quite easily facilitate this so that they include as many people as possible. I'm not holding my breath!
The council knows perfectly well what are "people's views" are. This is why they try to keep every decision under wraps until it is too late to change anything. The real problem is the self perpetuating institution that sees the community both as a financial liability and also as a cash raising body. Its a conundrum....and getting worse.
ReplyDelete