APPENDIX 4 – OFFLINE Consultation Responses (Waterloo & South Bank Public Realm Framework)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
APPENDIX 4 – OFFLINE Consultation Responses (Waterloo & South Bank Public Realm Framework) Represen REF. Comment made Officer response Proposed change tor #1 1 Foreword: Cllr Holland The Council and Publica sought to undertake a N/A Marylin The framework is the result of extensive consultation and engagement within the collaborative engagement process within the project Evers local area. It reflects the needs priorities and aspirations of a broad range of local scope, budget and resource. consultees. The project team aimed to have as many face-to-face Publica appeared to feel it was appropriate to allocate a very brief 30 minutes to meetings with strategic / commercial stakeholders as meetings with key stakeholders/businesses/organisations (the few they did meet) possible. As a result, 17 organisations were and that 30 minutes was adequate time to grasp the complexities, accommodated – which would have been significantly interdependencies and nuances of the area, or was it that Publica had no intention less if hour sessions were offered. of taking the time necessary to undertake thorough and rigorous research. The project team asked each stakeholder within the invitation and the meeting itself to submit any evidence to support the Framework and provide additional feedback to the team about their aspirations, plans and recommendations. 2 Some key stakeholders were omitted from the consultation, receiving no The community ‘drop-in’ sessions sought to capture N/A communication on the proposal for a public realm framework from Publica or from local resident’s views at a neighbourhood level. the local authority. Sessions were promoted via the council’s website and social media, with emails sent to stakeholders The public drop-in’ consultation sessions were not widely advertised to local people. requesting support in sharing with their networks. Information published by WCDG in April 2019 was the first local residents heard of Forty-four people attended the three sessions. In the draft public realm framework in many cases future we will advertise sessions more widely and further in advance and try to make provision for ‘offline’ communications. The purpose of undertaking a six-week public consultation was to enable the council to ensure a wider, more robust consultation – seeking views from residents, businesses, community and third sector organisations, landowners and others. 1 3 Executive Summary Officers disagree with this comment. However, the Amendments have It provides an assessment of the existing public realm Executive Summary should provide a clearer content been made to the The public realm framework is founded on a rigorous baseline study of local streets and understanding of the Framework. Executive Summary and spaces. (pages 6-13) considering other It provides a superficial, flawed assessment of key, high profile public realm assets, a comments received poor basis for a comprehensive, well informed public realm framework. from respondents following the public consultation. 4 An aspirational project for Coral Street The meeting with Bankside Open Spaces Trust in Amendments have The proposals for Coral Street have given rise to concern and some bewilderment February 2018 lasted 45 minutes. been made to spatial on the part of the local community and local community organisations. ‘A more brief D1 – Coral Street seamless connection with Waterloo Millennium Green’. Publica held one of those Publica made notes of all engagement meetings and (pg. 94) to reflect brief 30 minute meetings with Bankside Open Spaces Trust in February 2018. sought to ensure that the very broad range of BOST’s masterplan Publica clearly forgot or disregarded the discussion with BOST, completely ignoring comment was reflected within the Draft PRF. aspirations. or misinterpreting the ownership, management and maintenance arrangement in relation to the Waterloo Green. The PRF does not include spatial briefs (detailed Clarifications on live descriptions and recommendations) of ‘live’ projects, projects and their including Bernie Spain Gardens or Waterloo inclusion in the PRF Millennium Green masterplan. This was a conscious provided in the decision to avoid cutting across emerging proposals updated Executive and planning processes. The risk of rendering the PRF Summary and out-of-date prior to publication was also a concern. It alongside the is clear that this decision has been perceived as a lack Development Context of regard and support for these projects, which was map. not the intention. Greater clarity should have been provided to avoid this misunderstanding and this will be addressed in an updated PRF. The concept designs for Coral Street and Emma Cons Gardens are intended as high level, indicative and illustrative interventions only, representing Publica’s recommendations and professional advice for each site. They are not design proposals per se. 5 There is no indication of consultation and engagement with residents of Tanswell Any designs that come forward for ‘example projects’ Spatial brief D1 – Coral Estate in relation to this aspirational project for Coral Street. Local custodianship of (such as Coral Street) will be subject to separate due Street, second bullet the space and the closure of Coral Street to traffic present a major challenge in diligence; in which, conversations will be undertaken point (pg. 94) has been terms of the basic management practicalities for the local authority and the day to with interested parties, as well as dedicated design amended to: ‘Explore day lives of the residents of Tanswell Estate, and a challenge in terms of commissions and statutory public consultation and the opportunities to planning process, if required. relocate servicing and 2 consultation and engagement with those residents. The proposal appears to be refuse collection from misguided and misinformed. It is acknowledged that the status of the concept Coral Street with due designs could have been made clearer. This will be consideration to addressed in the update. authorised or essential access needs. Consider using access from Baylis Road.’ 6 This specific proposal and much of the draft public realm framework demonstrate Rough sleeping and homelessness are addressed A new sub-tactic has that the authors chose to overlook the longstanding challenge of the homeless within the ‘Key Issues and Opportunities’ section – been created within population, concentrated in this part of the Borough but increasing at pace across Evening and Night Time Economy (pg. 35) as per spatial brief C6 – Lambeth and the whole of the country. This must be a significant factor in the below: Emma Cons Gardens design and management of the public realm. A relevant and acceptable public (pg. 88): ‘Engage with realm framework must include management of the issue, including support for ‘Rough sleeping and homelessness remains a pressing partners and local ad vulnerable individuals using the public realm and support to the organisations concern in Waterloo and South Bank, especially at statutory stakeholders providing essential services and support. night and around the station. This reflects wider to address the London- trends that show the number of people sleeping rough wide challenges of in the UK is more than double what it was in 2010. rough sleeping and Local churches and charities, such as St. John’s and homelessness, which Webber Street, provide shelter to the homeless as are evident within this part of wider initiatives across the capital. space.’ 7 The evidence base for the Framework was established through comprehensive In future, Area Regeneration will include Waterloo N/A fieldwork and research, including on site public realm surveys and data collection.... Community Development Group as a key stakeholder. Engagement with the local community and stakeholders was central to the process. Stakeholder engagement has taken place in a variety of The community ‘drop-in’ sessions sought to capture ways...including...workshops. local resident’s views at a neighbourhood level. Sessions were promoted via the council’s website and Waterloo Community Development Group was not consulted. social media, with emails sent to stakeholders The public drop-in’ consultation sessions were not widely advertised to local people. requesting support in sharing with their networks. The report gives every impression of starting from a clean sheet, a fantasy fresh Forty-four people attended the three sessions. In start, taking little account of the lessons learned or of the work done previously, (for future we will advertise sessions more widely and example, a locally-led masterplan and design for Emma Cons Gardens agreed as part further in advance and try to make provision for of the overall improvements to The Cut and Lower Marsh and its renaissance as the ‘offline’ communications. shopping centre for the area, and was adopted by LBL in 2008, or the work currently in hand on Bernie Spain Gardens led by Coin Street Community Builders and local Reviewing and detailing lessons learned from previous residents). projects was not within the scope of the PRF. During communication and engagement with stakeholders, the council and Publica asked stakeholders to supply relevant strategies, plans and 3 documents to support the emerging Framework’s evidence base. The locally-led masterplan and design for Emma Cons Gardens produced in 2008 was not supplied to Publica or the Council during production of the Framework. The masterplan may retain merit and Lambeth would welcome sight of it. There is the