Letter to Viv Evans by a Resident following the neighbourhood meeting
(published here with the permission of Tony Lancaster)
12.11.2015
Dear Mr Evans
I wanted to be clear you heard what I said last evening when I asked you whose interests you serve. Despite Mr Cunningham standing tall on his high horse of arrogance and condescension I hope you heard me stating that I know you to be, and believe your department to be, persons of the highest integrity. I cannot deny I deliberately framed my question in a controversial manner - actually a cheap shot if I am honest - in order to make the point that George Innes made, more simply that he, and many others, truly believed the opening remarks from your officer to be the spiel from St George, and that in these complicated and political times we foot soldiers fighting to save our town are savvy enough to know that not everyone plays fair or by the book and that there are many aspects of this process that do not serve the needs and wants of the community. You did, i trust, note that fair or not my question was applauded, an indication that I merely spoke what many think.
I hope that you understand it is entirely appropriate that when we know there are companies whose business it is to influence decision makers on the agenda of development we are entitled to ask whether you have been influenced. It is not a professional nor personal slight. And of course the KRA and many others are indeed attempting to influence you.
So do I believe, even for a fleeting moment, that you are on the take? Most definitely not. What I do think is that you have a complex job and that the process where you are required to make a switch from recommendation to supporting the council’s refusal is a volte-face of huge intellectual demands. I think that is too much to ask of you but if I reflect on my own professional life I too have been in the position where I made proposals, had them refused and had to commit wholeheartedly to some other course of action, even whilst believing it was not the right course. The difference is that I didn’t have to make counter proposals in two minutes. My instinct is that in the heat of the Council Chamber you being required to come up with a set of reasons to refuse is rushed.
I am far from happy that ‘we’ have made the best case for refusal - where are the mentions of policy breaches, where is the mention of the principal tower? What has happened to the detailed points that the objectors have made. Diluted down to nothing it seems to me. You must be aware that many critics feel that it is a relief to the planning department when matters go to appeal - it passes the buck and an unpopular decision is made by someone else. This is not an accusation but I worry that the weak refusal is simply another step in the perfectly managed dance St George has orchestrated to get exactly what it wants.
It is important to get out in the open the discussion of your role as town planner and for us to feel you are working at least with us if not for us - though I do perhaps naively believe that is exactly your position. An example would be that It was a forehead-slapping moment for me last night when you said that only 200 objections had been received. Of course! It was a new application in the legal sense, how could I have not known that? But I would stake my life that 1800 people believed their original objection still stood given the real changes are so tiny as to be trivial. It is debatable whether it is your job to ensure I know what I need to know. I would though like to build a relationship where you feel comfortable allowing us to become stakeholders in the decision process. I cannot accept that council employees, however senior, are unreachable and answer only to their pay masters. That would be dangerously undemocratic.
The big developments in Kingston have opened the eyes to many of us to the challenges and difficulties of making a place better, of meeting the complex needs of a community and fitting within a vision for a future that can only be guessed but has to be factored in. This challenge of helping the councillors and its officers make the best decisions is what is going on in the minds of we residents and we need you to be on side, or at the very least listening to us.
There is therefore a great deal I and other members of the public should like to talk to you about. For example: Does the planning department have a Chief Architect, if not why? What is the planning departments role in place making? Do you even have a place-making policy? How are we going to arrive at a definition of good architecture? And one that includes the important issues that have put before you and the councillors. I heard you reference my comments about design from the previous DCC meeting - surely this is something planning needs to be proactive in? Is it not actually a serious breach of responsibility if the DCC members have only subjective responses when judging the architectural merit of proposals. I heard you say that TOPO is good design, although I disagree I know that you must have used some standard to say that. We need to understand your process and change or expand it if necessary to fit our standards. We need you to understand that although you are an experienced and committed professional not every one thinks that town planners have the right experience, the right aspiration or the right approach. In a supposedly increasingly decentralised government how is it that Kingston is obliged to follow policy from the GLA. Policy that we were never asked to approve. We understand you are obliged to take your policy as it is given to you. But policies can change. Policies do change and there are plenty of us who feel planning policies must change.
I hope you feel my letter can be the beginning of a better relationship and look forward to the chance of a frank exchange of views.
____________
Tony Lancaster
Dear Mr Evans
I wanted to be clear you heard what I said last evening when I asked you whose interests you serve. Despite Mr Cunningham standing tall on his high horse of arrogance and condescension I hope you heard me stating that I know you to be, and believe your department to be, persons of the highest integrity. I cannot deny I deliberately framed my question in a controversial manner - actually a cheap shot if I am honest - in order to make the point that George Innes made, more simply that he, and many others, truly believed the opening remarks from your officer to be the spiel from St George, and that in these complicated and political times we foot soldiers fighting to save our town are savvy enough to know that not everyone plays fair or by the book and that there are many aspects of this process that do not serve the needs and wants of the community. You did, i trust, note that fair or not my question was applauded, an indication that I merely spoke what many think.
I hope that you understand it is entirely appropriate that when we know there are companies whose business it is to influence decision makers on the agenda of development we are entitled to ask whether you have been influenced. It is not a professional nor personal slight. And of course the KRA and many others are indeed attempting to influence you.
So do I believe, even for a fleeting moment, that you are on the take? Most definitely not. What I do think is that you have a complex job and that the process where you are required to make a switch from recommendation to supporting the council’s refusal is a volte-face of huge intellectual demands. I think that is too much to ask of you but if I reflect on my own professional life I too have been in the position where I made proposals, had them refused and had to commit wholeheartedly to some other course of action, even whilst believing it was not the right course. The difference is that I didn’t have to make counter proposals in two minutes. My instinct is that in the heat of the Council Chamber you being required to come up with a set of reasons to refuse is rushed.
I am far from happy that ‘we’ have made the best case for refusal - where are the mentions of policy breaches, where is the mention of the principal tower? What has happened to the detailed points that the objectors have made. Diluted down to nothing it seems to me. You must be aware that many critics feel that it is a relief to the planning department when matters go to appeal - it passes the buck and an unpopular decision is made by someone else. This is not an accusation but I worry that the weak refusal is simply another step in the perfectly managed dance St George has orchestrated to get exactly what it wants.
It is important to get out in the open the discussion of your role as town planner and for us to feel you are working at least with us if not for us - though I do perhaps naively believe that is exactly your position. An example would be that It was a forehead-slapping moment for me last night when you said that only 200 objections had been received. Of course! It was a new application in the legal sense, how could I have not known that? But I would stake my life that 1800 people believed their original objection still stood given the real changes are so tiny as to be trivial. It is debatable whether it is your job to ensure I know what I need to know. I would though like to build a relationship where you feel comfortable allowing us to become stakeholders in the decision process. I cannot accept that council employees, however senior, are unreachable and answer only to their pay masters. That would be dangerously undemocratic.
The big developments in Kingston have opened the eyes to many of us to the challenges and difficulties of making a place better, of meeting the complex needs of a community and fitting within a vision for a future that can only be guessed but has to be factored in. This challenge of helping the councillors and its officers make the best decisions is what is going on in the minds of we residents and we need you to be on side, or at the very least listening to us.
There is therefore a great deal I and other members of the public should like to talk to you about. For example: Does the planning department have a Chief Architect, if not why? What is the planning departments role in place making? Do you even have a place-making policy? How are we going to arrive at a definition of good architecture? And one that includes the important issues that have put before you and the councillors. I heard you reference my comments about design from the previous DCC meeting - surely this is something planning needs to be proactive in? Is it not actually a serious breach of responsibility if the DCC members have only subjective responses when judging the architectural merit of proposals. I heard you say that TOPO is good design, although I disagree I know that you must have used some standard to say that. We need to understand your process and change or expand it if necessary to fit our standards. We need you to understand that although you are an experienced and committed professional not every one thinks that town planners have the right experience, the right aspiration or the right approach. In a supposedly increasingly decentralised government how is it that Kingston is obliged to follow policy from the GLA. Policy that we were never asked to approve. We understand you are obliged to take your policy as it is given to you. But policies can change. Policies do change and there are plenty of us who feel planning policies must change.
I hope you feel my letter can be the beginning of a better relationship and look forward to the chance of a frank exchange of views.
____________
Tony Lancaster