|
Letter from Peter Francis to the Richmond and
Twickenham Times
26 October 2003
Subject: Twickenham Baths Site
Your correspondent says 'It is inconceivable that a handful of objectors
have persuaded John Prescott to call in the children's playground
and garden scheme at Twickenham Riverside'. Quite right. It is. They
didn't. It was the scheme itself that did it.
Wherever do your correspondents get the idea that objectors are so
influential that they can secure a public inquiry simply by complaining
loudly and often? There has to be substance. You will only get an
inquiry, and as David Barnes has said, it is a rare event, if Central
Government believes there are issues that need to be explored. This
is obviously true since if they were called without justification
whenever an objector bleated the whole system would be discredited.
Objectors present an opinion but it is the planning application itself
which determines whether plans are called in.
In the present case there is even less cause to blame the objectors
since the Council's plans had to go to GOL (Government Office for
London) as LBRUT cannot be judge in its own cause. And at GOL they
can read and have minds of their own. If anyone is to blame, and
I don't like the blame game, it is the Council who knew perfectly
well the flaws in their own case - they were told often enough.
Objectors are not popular, particularly when they are right. By and
large, and they don't all sing to the same hymn sheet, they have
been right over the Baths Site development. They were right in opposing
the Marks and Spencers Plan or, if wrong, the Planning Inspector
must also have been wrong - men 'well known for their rigour and
objectivity' to quote another of your correspondents.
The Lib Dems, bless 'em, then tried their hand at public participation,
a difficult thing to manage and it withered but we did get a competition,
though I forget how the winner was chosen, and the Council started
work with the prize winner. At that time some of the 'objectors'
were working with the Council to try and improve the plan. But for
perfectly good reasons the Council severed its relationship with
that developer before taking up with Dawnay Day. Wasted time, of
course, but it could not have been foreseen.
Meanwhile these objectors still sweated blood trying to improve the
new plan. Eventually this cooperation broke down, the plans were
called in and another public inquiry announced. Were the objectors
right in their strenuous opposition? Obviously they were for the
Tories, as soon as they took control of the Council, said good bye
to Dawnay Day and talked about a Jubilee Gardens. Just what we wanted
we thought but regrettably that now seems to have been just the election
talking.
It must be said this is a particularly difficult site to get right.
There is money in it. Developers will always try and reduce the public
content to increase their profit and they are very skillful at manipulation
but the delays are mostly due to pursuing plans dogmatically which
a little reflection would show were not right. We thought with a
new administration that was all behind us. It seems not.
From Peter Francis,
Twickenham
|