Way Forward for the Stakeholder Forum?
Dear Stakeholder Forum Member,You will have received a letter from Dave Carroll setting out Brent’s proposals for the issues and structure of the Forum.We would like to offer an alternative: one that will be more inclusive and representative.
We believe that there was broad consensus on the key issues at the start-up meeting onthe 12th of December. However that meeting, facilitated by Miffa Salter, was geared to raising as many issues aspossible rather than identifying which concerns were most widely shared. We wereasked not to repeat each other’s views, even if we shared them. And we didn’t get a chance to agree anything (e.g. put any of the issues to a vote). If we had, we’d have hadnear-unanimity on most issues and a sense of having got somewhere by the end. We believe that the height of any buildings on the site is the issue which unites localopinion. It is Brent’s policy of putting a towerblock by the station which inspiredhundreds of local residents to object. And it is those objections which led Brent to set up the the stakeholder forum in the first place.We share concerns about transport and traffic management, social infrastructure and comprehensive development.
However the Forum must focus more precisely if it is toproduce an interim report in time for Brent to respond before the March 23rd cut-off. So we propose a way forward that focusses initially on what most residents are concernedabout – the height of the buildings. And we propose a simple majority voting system, where all 40 or so current members ofthe forum can vote on the issues. Brent’s proposed make-up of the forum (two representatives from Genesis, two fromQPARA, two from Brent, etc.) will distort its representation of the community. Whenyou have hundreds of people against a proposal and hardly any in favour, a group madeup of equal numbers from each group is not representative.In her meeting note, Miffa Salter sets out the Forum’s purpose as follows: “Overarching Aim • To provide credible and robust recommendations on the local community’spreferred future design of the Queens Park Station site which will be givenserious and genuine consideration by Brent Council.” We can’t see how Genesis – the developers with a financial interest in the height of thebuilding – can be thought of as part of “the local community” in this context. Likewise, itseems odd that Brent Council, by whom the report will have to be considered and who also a have a financial interest in the development, are also considered part of “the localcommunity”. We are not opposed to elected representatives of the sort Brent suggests leading thediscussion at public meetings. We can see that this might help streamline theproceedings. But we can’t see a reason for giving these representatives sole voting powers.Instead, we propose that each Forum meeting be open for all current members to attend, listen to the debate, make time-limited contributions from the floor and – mostimportantly – to vote.
SummaryHere’s a summary of what we propose: • Height is the unifying concern. The Forum must focus on it in the short term, toproduce an interim report in time for Brent to respond before 23 March. • Stakeholder group to continue with same people (i.e. no reduction).• Majority voting to be adopted. • Discussion may be led by a panel of elected representatives as set out by Brent(QPARA, SKNDC, Genesis, Stop the Tower, Brent Council, etc) if this is agreedby the majority at the next meeting.
• Next meeting to include a vote on the following:The Forum calls for the revision of Supplementary Planning Document’sheight indication for buildings in the Queen’s Park Station Area, because it believes consultation on the SPD to have been inadequate with regard tobuilding heights in the QPSA. • If we vote yes, immediate subsequent ballot on what the height cap in the SPDshould be revised to. • Ballot to be analysed there and then: mean, mode and median heights to becalculated. • We then vote on which of these to recommend as the revised height cap.• We then issue an immediate interim report on height to Brent.
What now? The only way Brent will agree to this way forward for the Forum is if a large number of Forum members support it.So we need your support. If you agree with the route set out above, please let us know. You can sign the slip belowand return it to us at 23 Hartland Road. Or you can email us at: qptower@hotmail.com Once we have a majority of Forum members in favour we will make a formalrepresentation to Brent. The proposal already has the support of over 15 Forum members.