TCI Commentary:
This story of trouble over a car park extension in Gerrard Cross raises an old but important problem. How do you know if there has been a reasonable consultation?
Read this article and you will feel sympathetic to residents – one of whom claims to have been a close neighbour to the project, and he clearly does not feel he was consulted.
But did he maybe miss the opportunity?
Or was the Council’s attempt to gather opinions half-hearted?
Or even worse?
What’s reassuring is to see that Councillors recognise the need to consult, and are willing to battle for the rights of their constituents to be consulted.
Should ensure it’s done better next time.
Or does it?
Article:
Furious Gerrards Cross residents stormed out of a tense meeting shouting “shame on you” at councillors who overruled a challenge against a decision to push forward with a controversial car park extension in the town.
Around 50 residents crowded into a small room at South Bucks District Council (SBDC) for an “extraordinary meeting” of the overview and scrutiny committee on November 8 to hear councillors discuss contentious plans after the decision to push ahead with the plans were “called in”.
Under SBDC rules five members of the council are able to stop any decision made by the cabinet from being implemented until it is discussed by the committee – if they provide a valid reason.
Councillors Santokh Chhokar, Dev Dhillon, Barry Harding, Roger Reed and George Sandy all joined together to call for the plans to be hauled in front of the committee for scrutiny.
Their four reasons were concerns over the business case, communication and consultation with residents, concerns over amount of money being borrowed for the project and concerns about full details of alternative schemes not being revealed.
Residents shouted “shame” and dubbed the meeting a “farce”, as the committee members overruled each concern in turn – backing the cabinet’s original decision to press on with the car park extension.
Cllr Harding received a round of applause from residents as he slammed his colleagues following the decision – and urged them to raise money for a judicial review.
He said: “I will say to the public, you have now seen first-hand what some of us councillors have had to work with. This is an experience I can tell you. Go home, put some money in the pot and go and judicially review them.”
As one resident stood up to leave, she said: “This is all based on a blatant lie. It is a complete farce. I live 100 yards away and I was not consulted. You are making decisions based on lies”.
Another resident demanded Cllr Trevor Egleton, a member of the committee who claimed at the meeting that the car park was a “good use of money”, stand down.
Speaking early on in the meeting, Cllr Harding slammed the business case for the project as “fundamentally flawed” adding that it relies on the “assumptions” of consultants Peter Brett, who he pointed out are employed by the preferred contractor for the building work – saying they were “compromised and not truly independent”.
Cllr Roger Reed added: “There has been a disturbing lack of any public consultation and involvement in a project that is really quite significant. The costs attached to this are enormous.
“My background is private sector and if I came up with a project like this, I would have been sacked. The business case does not stack up at all. We have people running this project who are not fit for purpose.
“A lot of the people in this room are far better qualified to say what is best for their community than the officers here.
“Why has there been no public consultation? What is there to hide? Little or no heed has been taken of public opinion.
“If we are elected members, we are supposed to be representing the views of those who elected us and that has not happened in this case.
“The residents of Gerrards Cross deserve a lot better than the contempt they have been treated with with this project.”
Cllr Dhillon added his concerns about the funding of the £13.5 million project, the cost of which would be paid back over a 40-year period, saying the council was taking a “huge risk” with taxpayers’ money.
This article originally appeared on Bucks Free Press
The Institute cannot confirm the accuracy of this story or confirm that it presents a balanced view. If you feel this is inaccurate we would welcome your perspective and evidence that this is the case.
