Scrolling gallery (above): officers tell the public contradictory things and often display a ‘pass the buck’ attitude. A sea of red banners with ever-changing messages that could see our public market demolished, replaced and we suspect even privatised!
FoQM have attended a number of Newham Council’s public consultations inside Queen’s Market over the last few months (August-September 2022). They’re telling us about their ‘Investment Strategy’ for the market, previously called the Capacity and Viability Study. These ‘off the peg’ consultation are the reason why so many Londoners have broken trust with local planning departments, are sick and tired of hollow words from officers that promise so much but deliver very little tangible difference – what has been your experience of public consultation in the planning process?
Below is the contents of an e-mail a local shopper sent to the Mayor of Newham and an officer following their visit to the consultation hub in August 2022:
Dear —– ——-, Green Street Programme Manager
I went along to the Public Engagement Event today only to find that the consultants are giving out misleading information to the general public.
Following months of consultation, the Council have reduced the 5 options from the previous public consultation to 2 shortlisted options for the public to decide and comment on.
Here’s what I experienced:
- One person who introduced themselves as a ‘translator’ told a visiting family that Option 1 would mean that nothing would change – this is untrue.
- The translator proceeded to explain what the options to “modernise” might mean, but failed to say that these further shortlisted options would mean some level of demolition and relocation of the existing Queen’s Market, of market uses or functions – again, nothing of this information was written in the information boards nor told to the visiting public.
- The consultants were all filling in forms for visitors on their behalf. The forms did not give the option to people to provide their details, so the forms could be easily be filled in by anyone. The public’s right to withdraw was not given either.
- In addition to Option 1 and 2, the public don’t have a 3rd option to choose from, where they might not want to vote on the shortlisted two options.
- The drawings for the Hamara Ghar (HG) boundary are depicted wrongly on many of the boards eg. one drawing includes Queen’s Square as part of HG, another with HG’s footprint at half the size and one shows the Queen’s Pub and Focus Furnishings included as part of HG – all misleading and inaccurate.
- All the officers and consultants I encountered said that the Investment Strategy ideas being shown were to get a feel of what people want and not necessarily what will happen – what’s the point of taking the public through a process that will not be considered?
- The options presented showed that some of the work undertaken from the Good Growth fund could be demolished eg. Architecture 00’s current planning application for offices on top of the Queen’s Market compound.
If the process I experienced today has continued since the beginning, the Council and its officers will end up with 95% of visitors unknowingly choosing Option 2 ie. to demolish the market and develop it. We spoke with some shopkeepers and workers who say that they did not know that demolition, displacement, housing and inevitable rent rises were on the cards – they said that this was not explained to them.
We are getting very concerned about the level of misleading information being told to the general public.
I would like to know how the findings from the the latest consultation will be processed and the next steps in this engagement process.
Yours sincerely,
— —-
An officer had replied to the email above but did not say how the feedback would be incorporated into any changes to the entire consultation on Queen’s Market 🙄
To promote and preserve a thriving publicly-owned historic street market 