Too many consultations in Brighton and Hove?

First published in News by

It is intended as a way to give people a say and perhaps save some money in the long run, but has consultation in Brighton and Hove gone too far?

City leaders have been told there are currently 101 separate pieces of consultation into areas as diverse as waste disposal, business; eco-energy and singing groups – and experts said it was not a complete list.

Bosses also revealed the cost was only available for 21 of the schemes – and came to £203,000.

However, Brighton and Hove City Council, which is carrying out a number of the consultations, said it was important to find out what residents and visitors thought.

It also defended the costs, adding not all consultations carry similar sums.

The details were revealed at a meeting of the Brighton and Hove Strategic Partnership, a group made up of decision-makers in the city. Consultations were recorded as being carried out by Brighton and Hove City Council, Sussex Police, East Sussex Fire and Res- cue Service and NHS groups.

Some are open to everyone, others ask selected groups for their views.

Roger French, chairman of Brighton and Hove Strategic Partnership, said: “For some time there has been quite differing views into consultations in the city.

“Some are thinking there’s not enough, others think there’s consultation overload.

“It’s the beginning of a piece of work to try to bring some sense of exactly what’s going on and to try to strike a balance.”

Conservative councillor Geoffrey Theobald said: “There is an awful lot of
consultation going on across the city, much of which is duplicated, and very little of it is actually costed.

"This cannot be right, particularly at a time when all public sec- tor organisations are under financial pressure.

“I know from experience at the council that consul- tation varies widely in quality and so it makes sense to rationalise it where possible. As always it is very important that taxpayers know what their money is being spent on.”

A council spokeswoman said: “Consultations are important for a variety of reasons. Some of the consultations are statutory and are required by Government before important policy decisions can be made or strategies developed. Failure to carry out adequate and robust con- sultation can lead to judi- cial review on decisions taken by the council.

“Consultations are also a vitally important source of feedback.

“It is important to take residents’ and service users’ views into account before we deliver services for them, or make decisions which will impact on their lives.”


What do you think? Email letters@theargus.co.uk, visit www.theargus.co.uk/letters or write to us with your thoughts

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:19pm Thu 27 Sep 12

george smith says...

Think they are playing games In the case of Wild Park consultations you had to go on a walk with a bloke. They seem to think a way of consulting which is likely to deliver the result they want
Think they are playing games In the case of Wild Park consultations you had to go on a walk with a bloke. They seem to think a way of consulting which is likely to deliver the result they want george smith
  • Score: 0

6:25pm Thu 27 Sep 12

MarkBrighton says...

I think there really needs to be a consultation to find out if there are too many consultations.
I think there really needs to be a consultation to find out if there are too many consultations. MarkBrighton
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Thu 27 Sep 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

A consultation is an indepdendent process in which the organisation is willing to accept the results and take them into consideration and whatever issue is being consulted about.
A promotion process is what we get in this city.
A good example is the issuing of 31,000 surveys to residents about the Lewes Road proposals, getting a 13 per cent response with only 2,600 people supporting the scheme and then stating in public that the scheme is backed when clearly it isn't.
Propaganda at it's poorest.
A consultation is an indepdendent process in which the organisation is willing to accept the results and take them into consideration and whatever issue is being consulted about. A promotion process is what we get in this city. A good example is the issuing of 31,000 surveys to residents about the Lewes Road proposals, getting a 13 per cent response with only 2,600 people supporting the scheme and then stating in public that the scheme is backed when clearly it isn't. Propaganda at it's poorest. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

6:54pm Thu 27 Sep 12

fredflintstone1 says...

Consultation - it's a process the Council reluctantly goes through to enable them to press on with their plans regardless.

Their spokeswoman even admits that: "Failure to carry out adequate and robust consultation can lead to judicial review on decisions taken by the council."

How many times has the outcome of a consultation had any major impact on proposals put forward by the Council?

Look at the Lewes Road plans - did the majority support it? No. Are the Council pressing on anyway? Yes.

It's a question of how the consultation findings are used that is critical. The Lewes Road consultation was a waste of money for local taxpayers, but it gets the Council what they want.
Consultation - it's a process the Council reluctantly goes through to enable them to press on with their plans regardless. Their spokeswoman even admits that: "Failure to carry out adequate and robust consultation can lead to judicial review on decisions taken by the council." How many times has the outcome of a consultation had any major impact on proposals put forward by the Council? Look at the Lewes Road plans - did the majority support it? No. Are the Council pressing on anyway? Yes. It's a question of how the consultation findings are used that is critical. The Lewes Road consultation was a waste of money for local taxpayers, but it gets the Council what they want. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 0

7:10pm Thu 27 Sep 12

fredflintstone1 says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
A consultation is an indepdendent process in which the organisation is willing to accept the results and take them into consideration and whatever issue is being consulted about.
A promotion process is what we get in this city.
A good example is the issuing of 31,000 surveys to residents about the Lewes Road proposals, getting a 13 per cent response with only 2,600 people supporting the scheme and then stating in public that the scheme is backed when clearly it isn't.
Propaganda at it's poorest.
Couldn't agree more. Look at how they use the data. The Council website now proudly boasts that 69% of people supported their plans for the Wild Park. Sounds impressive .....

What they don't tell you is that they mailed out 16,000 people (twice) and just 36 people (yes, thirty-six) actually supported their plans.This also conveniently ignores the views of about 1800 local people who signed a petition opposing the work.

Work out how much it cost for the two mailings, not forgetting the seminars they organised, and you can see how hard the Council had to work and how much money they had to spend to get any support at all, in their bid to turn this area from a public park into a fenced sheep park.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: A consultation is an indepdendent process in which the organisation is willing to accept the results and take them into consideration and whatever issue is being consulted about. A promotion process is what we get in this city. A good example is the issuing of 31,000 surveys to residents about the Lewes Road proposals, getting a 13 per cent response with only 2,600 people supporting the scheme and then stating in public that the scheme is backed when clearly it isn't. Propaganda at it's poorest.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more. Look at how they use the data. The Council website now proudly boasts that 69% of people supported their plans for the Wild Park. Sounds impressive ..... What they don't tell you is that they mailed out 16,000 people (twice) and just 36 people (yes, thirty-six) actually supported their plans.This also conveniently ignores the views of about 1800 local people who signed a petition opposing the work. Work out how much it cost for the two mailings, not forgetting the seminars they organised, and you can see how hard the Council had to work and how much money they had to spend to get any support at all, in their bid to turn this area from a public park into a fenced sheep park. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 0

7:34pm Thu 27 Sep 12

SMc says...

Yes.

That'll be £65,000 please.
Yes. That'll be £65,000 please. SMc
  • Score: 0

7:36pm Thu 27 Sep 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

I am going to dig around in these consultations and re-visit the paperwork, because I have serious concerns about the way in which the data is being used and interpreted.
One of the posters on here was putting an FoI request in about the results.
I smell a rat as do everyone I know in my community who are wholly opposed to it.
For interest, on Monday one of the lanes on the Lewes Road at the Coldean Lane junction was partially closed. The tailback of traffic in the outside lane during rush hour was horrific.
I was on my bike and the fumes were appalling so in future we can expect those levels of queues and fumes every day.
I still have yet to see a single Green councillor commuting by bike.
Come on Bill Randall, you look like you need to cycle.
I am going to dig around in these consultations and re-visit the paperwork, because I have serious concerns about the way in which the data is being used and interpreted. One of the posters on here was putting an FoI request in about the results. I smell a rat as do everyone I know in my community who are wholly opposed to it. For interest, on Monday one of the lanes on the Lewes Road at the Coldean Lane junction was partially closed. The tailback of traffic in the outside lane during rush hour was horrific. I was on my bike and the fumes were appalling so in future we can expect those levels of queues and fumes every day. I still have yet to see a single Green councillor commuting by bike. Come on Bill Randall, you look like you need to cycle. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

7:51pm Thu 27 Sep 12

salty_pete says...

There may be a statutory requirement for consultation for major projects, but there is no statutory requirement for the council to take a blind bit of notice of the responses.
There may be a statutory requirement for consultation for major projects, but there is no statutory requirement for the council to take a blind bit of notice of the responses. salty_pete
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Thu 27 Sep 12

HJarrs says...

oh dear. Lots of sour grapes on here.

This is a classic heads I win, tails I win story for the Argus. Stir up the bile about consultations and in 6 months time, when consultations have been reduced through an Argus campaign, complain that the public are being consulted.

The story should be why so few people take part in consultations that affect them despite it being made so easy for them to take part.
oh dear. Lots of sour grapes on here. This is a classic heads I win, tails I win story for the Argus. Stir up the bile about consultations and in 6 months time, when consultations have been reduced through an Argus campaign, complain that the public are being consulted. The story should be why so few people take part in consultations that affect them despite it being made so easy for them to take part. HJarrs
  • Score: 0

8:14pm Thu 27 Sep 12

Rev Enge says...

Ask a Teacher they know best, allegedly.

"Its normal?"
Ask a Teacher they know best, allegedly. "Its normal?" Rev Enge
  • Score: 0

8:26pm Thu 27 Sep 12

BrightonArchitect says...

If people can't be bothered to respond to consultation then they are clearly not interested in the issue. Why would the council want to do bad things? What's their motivation? Stop moaning and get involved!
If people can't be bothered to respond to consultation then they are clearly not interested in the issue. Why would the council want to do bad things? What's their motivation? Stop moaning and get involved! BrightonArchitect
  • Score: 0

8:57pm Thu 27 Sep 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

HJarrs you are being naughty because the gripes are not about the spend, but the way in which the data and results are misreported and used not about the process.
If you are going to consult, at least be transparent with the results.
It is not impossible to upload JPegs of all responsed onto an online portal and show the responses, particulalry as they were anonymous.
It is also an outright lie to state that 65 per cent of people back the Lewes Road scheme.
It is correct to state that: "13 per cent of 31,000 people responded to the Lewes Road survey and 65 per cent of those who responded supported the scheme while 35 per cent did not support it."
If the council had a desire to be honest it would give clear figures ie 31,000 surveys sent, 4000 completed.
2500 in support of the scheme, 1,500 against.
It is not correct to outright state, most people support the Lewes Road scheme.
Lying or manipulating data is wholly undemocratic and if this was statutory consultation it would be illegal.
I am going to write to the Government Ombudsman and the Tax Payers Alliance about the use of language in reporting the data as while it may not be a statutory requirement to consult, tax payers' money is being used and the information being reported back inaccurately.
No matter which party is in power, that is unacceptable.
HJarrs you are being naughty because the gripes are not about the spend, but the way in which the data and results are misreported and used not about the process. If you are going to consult, at least be transparent with the results. It is not impossible to upload JPegs of all responsed onto an online portal and show the responses, particulalry as they were anonymous. It is also an outright lie to state that 65 per cent of people back the Lewes Road scheme. It is correct to state that: "13 per cent of 31,000 people responded to the Lewes Road survey and 65 per cent of those who responded supported the scheme while 35 per cent did not support it." If the council had a desire to be honest it would give clear figures ie 31,000 surveys sent, 4000 completed. 2500 in support of the scheme, 1,500 against. It is not correct to outright state, most people support the Lewes Road scheme. Lying or manipulating data is wholly undemocratic and if this was statutory consultation it would be illegal. I am going to write to the Government Ombudsman and the Tax Payers Alliance about the use of language in reporting the data as while it may not be a statutory requirement to consult, tax payers' money is being used and the information being reported back inaccurately. No matter which party is in power, that is unacceptable. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

9:07pm Thu 27 Sep 12

Morpheus says...

They really are quite pointless. The full time council staff should know all the options and should be able to come up with a suitable solution. Consultations suggest that they will take into account the views received, but they clearly cannot do this.
They really are quite pointless. The full time council staff should know all the options and should be able to come up with a suitable solution. Consultations suggest that they will take into account the views received, but they clearly cannot do this. Morpheus
  • Score: 0

9:09pm Thu 27 Sep 12

fredflintstone1 says...

BrightonArchitect wrote:
If people can't be bothered to respond to consultation then they are clearly not interested in the issue. Why would the council want to do bad things? What's their motivation? Stop moaning and get involved!
People do get involved - the petition mentioned above had about 1800 signatures, but it was ignored. It's been totally airbrushed out of the debate by the Council.

There's 253 people right now on the Save Wild Park Woods facebook site - or, to use the Council's format, 86% more people are opposed to the clearance there than support the work. But their views aren't listened to, or accorded any respect.

The way in which you have to log on, and give all your details to take part in many Council consultations is also off-putting for many people - not least employees of the council. (In fact, I think this form of consultation much beloved by Brighton & Hove is a breach of human rights legislation).

If you want a fenced sheep park to make money, rather than an open, public park as the Wild Park has been since the 1920s, then I guess you'll be happy with what the Council is doing.

To say that Councils wouldn't do "bad things", however, is a totally crazy suggestion. How can you be so naive? Political dogma, power ****, money, self-interest of individuals (as an architect, you surely must have heard of John Poulson?) ... make up your own list or simply google "council corruption".
[quote][p][bold]BrightonArchitect[/bold] wrote: If people can't be bothered to respond to consultation then they are clearly not interested in the issue. Why would the council want to do bad things? What's their motivation? Stop moaning and get involved![/p][/quote]People do get involved - the petition mentioned above had about 1800 signatures, but it was ignored. It's been totally airbrushed out of the debate by the Council. There's 253 people right now on the Save Wild Park Woods facebook site - or, to use the Council's format, 86% more people are opposed to the clearance there than support the work. But their views aren't listened to, or accorded any respect. The way in which you have to log on, and give all your details to take part in many Council consultations is also off-putting for many people - not least employees of the council. (In fact, I think this form of consultation much beloved by Brighton & Hove is a breach of human rights legislation). If you want a fenced sheep park to make money, rather than an open, public park as the Wild Park has been since the 1920s, then I guess you'll be happy with what the Council is doing. To say that Councils wouldn't do "bad things", however, is a totally crazy suggestion. How can you be so naive? Political dogma, power ****, money, self-interest of individuals (as an architect, you surely must have heard of John Poulson?) ... make up your own list or simply google "council corruption". fredflintstone1
  • Score: 0

9:11pm Thu 27 Sep 12

george smith says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
HJarrs you are being naughty because the gripes are not about the spend, but the way in which the data and results are misreported and used not about the process. If you are going to consult, at least be transparent with the results. It is not impossible to upload JPegs of all responsed onto an online portal and show the responses, particulalry as they were anonymous. It is also an outright lie to state that 65 per cent of people back the Lewes Road scheme. It is correct to state that: "13 per cent of 31,000 people responded to the Lewes Road survey and 65 per cent of those who responded supported the scheme while 35 per cent did not support it." If the council had a desire to be honest it would give clear figures ie 31,000 surveys sent, 4000 completed. 2500 in support of the scheme, 1,500 against. It is not correct to outright state, most people support the Lewes Road scheme. Lying or manipulating data is wholly undemocratic and if this was statutory consultation it would be illegal. I am going to write to the Government Ombudsman and the Tax Payers Alliance about the use of language in reporting the data as while it may not be a statutory requirement to consult, tax payers' money is being used and the information being reported back inaccurately. No matter which party is in power, that is unacceptable.
If my memory serves me well there was some problem with people who emailed their thoughts about the Wild Park tree felling, fencing and sheep not be counted in the figures.

On cost there should be an investigation into the cost to taxpayers for the sheep. The shepherd is making a pretty penny
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: HJarrs you are being naughty because the gripes are not about the spend, but the way in which the data and results are misreported and used not about the process. If you are going to consult, at least be transparent with the results. It is not impossible to upload JPegs of all responsed onto an online portal and show the responses, particulalry as they were anonymous. It is also an outright lie to state that 65 per cent of people back the Lewes Road scheme. It is correct to state that: "13 per cent of 31,000 people responded to the Lewes Road survey and 65 per cent of those who responded supported the scheme while 35 per cent did not support it." If the council had a desire to be honest it would give clear figures ie 31,000 surveys sent, 4000 completed. 2500 in support of the scheme, 1,500 against. It is not correct to outright state, most people support the Lewes Road scheme. Lying or manipulating data is wholly undemocratic and if this was statutory consultation it would be illegal. I am going to write to the Government Ombudsman and the Tax Payers Alliance about the use of language in reporting the data as while it may not be a statutory requirement to consult, tax payers' money is being used and the information being reported back inaccurately. No matter which party is in power, that is unacceptable.[/p][/quote]If my memory serves me well there was some problem with people who emailed their thoughts about the Wild Park tree felling, fencing and sheep not be counted in the figures. On cost there should be an investigation into the cost to taxpayers for the sheep. The shepherd is making a pretty penny george smith
  • Score: 0

9:17pm Thu 27 Sep 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

The council's press release about the Lewes Road results is on its website.
The way in which the data is reported is digraceful and wholly inaccruate.
According to the release, 18 per cent of those who responded were not residents but the council has not given us data as to how many of the non-residents voted in favour of the scheme.
That could really give us a real insight into how the local people felt. The figures may actually show that more locals objected.
The more you read the more shocking the data interpretation is.
Right, I am sending it to the Taxpayers Alliance now.
The council's press release about the Lewes Road results is on its website. The way in which the data is reported is digraceful and wholly inaccruate. According to the release, 18 per cent of those who responded were not residents but the council has not given us data as to how many of the non-residents voted in favour of the scheme. That could really give us a real insight into how the local people felt. The figures may actually show that more locals objected. The more you read the more shocking the data interpretation is. Right, I am sending it to the Taxpayers Alliance now. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

9:28pm Thu 27 Sep 12

fredflintstone1 says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
The council's press release about the Lewes Road results is on its website.
The way in which the data is reported is digraceful and wholly inaccruate.
According to the release, 18 per cent of those who responded were not residents but the council has not given us data as to how many of the non-residents voted in favour of the scheme.
That could really give us a real insight into how the local people felt. The figures may actually show that more locals objected.
The more you read the more shocking the data interpretation is.
Right, I am sending it to the Taxpayers Alliance now.
Funnily enough, that was exactly the same situation with the Wild Park consultation.

The Council has never revealed - in spite of being asked, so I believe - how many of their 36 responses came from people outside the area!
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: The council's press release about the Lewes Road results is on its website. The way in which the data is reported is digraceful and wholly inaccruate. According to the release, 18 per cent of those who responded were not residents but the council has not given us data as to how many of the non-residents voted in favour of the scheme. That could really give us a real insight into how the local people felt. The figures may actually show that more locals objected. The more you read the more shocking the data interpretation is. Right, I am sending it to the Taxpayers Alliance now.[/p][/quote]Funnily enough, that was exactly the same situation with the Wild Park consultation. The Council has never revealed - in spite of being asked, so I believe - how many of their 36 responses came from people outside the area! fredflintstone1
  • Score: 0

9:35pm Thu 27 Sep 12

Martha Gunn says...

The consultation most urgently needed is the one on the shambles caused by the Green Party trying to run our city. That they have been a disaster is undeniable but matters have now reached a tipping point.

The Chief Executive and the senior management have done a runner (and who could resonably blame them - they have professional reputations to protect).
The ruling Green Party is in complete disarray and split right down the middle, not least on its selection of curious candidates.
Council services are deteriorating and valued facilities are being closed down despite the bloated and unfounded claims of the Green Party.
This is not what we expected from the first Green Party council administration in the country.
And now there is loads of publicity and persistent rumours about all sorts of dodgy dealing about the appointment of the new Chief Executive.
The Green Party have failed and urgent and exceptional action is needed. Perhaps an appointed commission of wise men and women could be constituted, to look at these failures and restore faith in our City governance. But something certainly needs to be done as quickly as possible. This cannot go on.
The consultation most urgently needed is the one on the shambles caused by the Green Party trying to run our city. That they have been a disaster is undeniable but matters have now reached a tipping point. The Chief Executive and the senior management have done a runner (and who could resonably blame them - they have professional reputations to protect). The ruling Green Party is in complete disarray and split right down the middle, not least on its selection of curious candidates. Council services are deteriorating and valued facilities are being closed down despite the bloated and unfounded claims of the Green Party. This is not what we expected from the first Green Party council administration in the country. And now there is loads of publicity and persistent rumours about all sorts of dodgy dealing about the appointment of the new Chief Executive. The Green Party have failed and urgent and exceptional action is needed. Perhaps an appointed commission of wise men and women could be constituted, to look at these failures and restore faith in our City governance. But something certainly needs to be done as quickly as possible. This cannot go on. Martha Gunn
  • Score: 0

9:38pm Thu 27 Sep 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

I find the language being used in the release absolutely shockingly inaccurate.
The healdine of the release is "Big Yes, for Lewes Road eco plan.
The first line then states that there was overwheling support.
That is personal comment by the author or councillor or officer publishing this.
The data does not support that comment.
This is the most disgraceful piece of propoganda, lies and inaccurate information being promoted and also being published by council tax payers money.
I will take this further and present this to the Planning Inspector and also the granting organisations giving money and I may actually just send it to the Prime Minister.
These are just outright lies and not the behaviour or elected councils should be involved in.
I find the language being used in the release absolutely shockingly inaccurate. The healdine of the release is "Big Yes, for Lewes Road eco plan. The first line then states that there was overwheling support. That is personal comment by the author or councillor or officer publishing this. The data does not support that comment. This is the most disgraceful piece of propoganda, lies and inaccurate information being promoted and also being published by council tax payers money. I will take this further and present this to the Planning Inspector and also the granting organisations giving money and I may actually just send it to the Prime Minister. These are just outright lies and not the behaviour or elected councils should be involved in. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

8:31am Fri 28 Sep 12

NickBrt says...

What a laugh about wanting to know what the people think!! They only care about the people when its election time, you never see a Councillor any other time. Jason Kitekat does what he likes having been elected as Leader (from a shortlist of 1!!!) and doesn't care who he upsets as long as its not a protester or a traveller.
What a laugh about wanting to know what the people think!! They only care about the people when its election time, you never see a Councillor any other time. Jason Kitekat does what he likes having been elected as Leader (from a shortlist of 1!!!) and doesn't care who he upsets as long as its not a protester or a traveller. NickBrt
  • Score: 0

8:32am Fri 28 Sep 12

HJarrs says...

Martha Gunn wrote:
The consultation most urgently needed is the one on the shambles caused by the Green Party trying to run our city. That they have been a disaster is undeniable but matters have now reached a tipping point. The Chief Executive and the senior management have done a runner (and who could resonably blame them - they have professional reputations to protect). The ruling Green Party is in complete disarray and split right down the middle, not least on its selection of curious candidates. Council services are deteriorating and valued facilities are being closed down despite the bloated and unfounded claims of the Green Party. This is not what we expected from the first Green Party council administration in the country. And now there is loads of publicity and persistent rumours about all sorts of dodgy dealing about the appointment of the new Chief Executive. The Green Party have failed and urgent and exceptional action is needed. Perhaps an appointed commission of wise men and women could be constituted, to look at these failures and restore faith in our City governance. But something certainly needs to be done as quickly as possible. This cannot go on.
Hmmm, that wouldn't be the senior management team introduced by you Tories to save money but now the wheels have come off the ill thought out strategy and they have now left. You should hang your head in shame that you and your party left the council in such a state.
[quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: The consultation most urgently needed is the one on the shambles caused by the Green Party trying to run our city. That they have been a disaster is undeniable but matters have now reached a tipping point. The Chief Executive and the senior management have done a runner (and who could resonably blame them - they have professional reputations to protect). The ruling Green Party is in complete disarray and split right down the middle, not least on its selection of curious candidates. Council services are deteriorating and valued facilities are being closed down despite the bloated and unfounded claims of the Green Party. This is not what we expected from the first Green Party council administration in the country. And now there is loads of publicity and persistent rumours about all sorts of dodgy dealing about the appointment of the new Chief Executive. The Green Party have failed and urgent and exceptional action is needed. Perhaps an appointed commission of wise men and women could be constituted, to look at these failures and restore faith in our City governance. But something certainly needs to be done as quickly as possible. This cannot go on.[/p][/quote]Hmmm, that wouldn't be the senior management team introduced by you Tories to save money but now the wheels have come off the ill thought out strategy and they have now left. You should hang your head in shame that you and your party left the council in such a state. HJarrs
  • Score: 0

8:45am Fri 28 Sep 12

HJarrs says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
I find the language being used in the release absolutely shockingly inaccurate. The healdine of the release is "Big Yes, for Lewes Road eco plan. The first line then states that there was overwheling support. That is personal comment by the author or councillor or officer publishing this. The data does not support that comment. This is the most disgraceful piece of propoganda, lies and inaccurate information being promoted and also being published by council tax payers money. I will take this further and present this to the Planning Inspector and also the granting organisations giving money and I may actually just send it to the Prime Minister. These are just outright lies and not the behaviour or elected councils should be involved in.
Whilst there would seem to be some poor english in the press release according to your post, there is hardly a resounding no for the proposals. Rather there would appear to be resounding apathy, which is sad when it was so easy to take part. Of those responding, the majority were favourable to the scheme. However, a consultation is not a vote, whether the response was favourable or not. I hope that the council officers will take onboard sensible comments to incorporate into the final design and implimentation. My only concern is that the highways designers have not covered themselves in glory in the past and will really have to raise the bar to deliver the quality of design required.

I look forward to your response from the Prime Minister. Of course you may have to explain the concept of consultation to him as this is an entirely alien concept to the Tories. You might, as an aside, ask when we are to be consulted about the changes being made to the NHS.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: I find the language being used in the release absolutely shockingly inaccurate. The healdine of the release is "Big Yes, for Lewes Road eco plan. The first line then states that there was overwheling support. That is personal comment by the author or councillor or officer publishing this. The data does not support that comment. This is the most disgraceful piece of propoganda, lies and inaccurate information being promoted and also being published by council tax payers money. I will take this further and present this to the Planning Inspector and also the granting organisations giving money and I may actually just send it to the Prime Minister. These are just outright lies and not the behaviour or elected councils should be involved in.[/p][/quote]Whilst there would seem to be some poor english in the press release according to your post, there is hardly a resounding no for the proposals. Rather there would appear to be resounding apathy, which is sad when it was so easy to take part. Of those responding, the majority were favourable to the scheme. However, a consultation is not a vote, whether the response was favourable or not. I hope that the council officers will take onboard sensible comments to incorporate into the final design and implimentation. My only concern is that the highways designers have not covered themselves in glory in the past and will really have to raise the bar to deliver the quality of design required. I look forward to your response from the Prime Minister. Of course you may have to explain the concept of consultation to him as this is an entirely alien concept to the Tories. You might, as an aside, ask when we are to be consulted about the changes being made to the NHS. HJarrs
  • Score: 0

9:52am Fri 28 Sep 12

Charismatic Andrew says...

I just roll my eyes whenever I hear of another consulation. The Council don't care what people really think. To suggest otherwise it garbage.

A classic example is the changes to parking in Preston Park. In the consultation regarding this scheme it was rejected by 98% of people who responded.

And yet the Council still went ahead anyway. Brilliant.
I just roll my eyes whenever I hear of another consulation. The Council don't care what people really think. To suggest otherwise it garbage. A classic example is the changes to parking in Preston Park. In the consultation regarding this scheme it was rejected by 98% of people who responded. And yet the Council still went ahead anyway. Brilliant. Charismatic Andrew
  • Score: 0

10:46am Fri 28 Sep 12

ramble says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
BrightonArchitect wrote:
If people can't be bothered to respond to consultation then they are clearly not interested in the issue. Why would the council want to do bad things? What's their motivation? Stop moaning and get involved!
People do get involved - the petition mentioned above had about 1800 signatures, but it was ignored. It's been totally airbrushed out of the debate by the Council.

There's 253 people right now on the Save Wild Park Woods facebook site - or, to use the Council's format, 86% more people are opposed to the clearance there than support the work. But their views aren't listened to, or accorded any respect.

The way in which you have to log on, and give all your details to take part in many Council consultations is also off-putting for many people - not least employees of the council. (In fact, I think this form of consultation much beloved by Brighton & Hove is a breach of human rights legislation).

If you want a fenced sheep park to make money, rather than an open, public park as the Wild Park has been since the 1920s, then I guess you'll be happy with what the Council is doing.

To say that Councils wouldn't do "bad things", however, is a totally crazy suggestion. How can you be so naive? Political dogma, power ****, money, self-interest of individuals (as an architect, you surely must have heard of John Poulson?) ... make up your own list or simply google "council corruption".
Totally agree with you, lost all respect for the council. Their so called consultations are nothing more then carefully worded questions designed around what they want .

As was the case with one on Wild Park.
On one of their consultations the council gave carefully worded questions for you to tick.
These questions favoured what the council wanted to do (clear Wild Park).
I thought the idea of a consultation was for various views to be heard, there was no option on this consultation to leave a comment.
The Council so far have cleared 229 Oak trees . Despite the Forestry Commission finding the Council guilty of not having a forestry license they are now going to clear a lot more.
The petition with around1800 was ignored.The Councils claim of 69% of people for the clearance,is based on less then 40 people.
Who checks the results of consultations, the council!
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrightonArchitect[/bold] wrote: If people can't be bothered to respond to consultation then they are clearly not interested in the issue. Why would the council want to do bad things? What's their motivation? Stop moaning and get involved![/p][/quote]People do get involved - the petition mentioned above had about 1800 signatures, but it was ignored. It's been totally airbrushed out of the debate by the Council. There's 253 people right now on the Save Wild Park Woods facebook site - or, to use the Council's format, 86% more people are opposed to the clearance there than support the work. But their views aren't listened to, or accorded any respect. The way in which you have to log on, and give all your details to take part in many Council consultations is also off-putting for many people - not least employees of the council. (In fact, I think this form of consultation much beloved by Brighton & Hove is a breach of human rights legislation). If you want a fenced sheep park to make money, rather than an open, public park as the Wild Park has been since the 1920s, then I guess you'll be happy with what the Council is doing. To say that Councils wouldn't do "bad things", however, is a totally crazy suggestion. How can you be so naive? Political dogma, power ****, money, self-interest of individuals (as an architect, you surely must have heard of John Poulson?) ... make up your own list or simply google "council corruption".[/p][/quote]Totally agree with you, lost all respect for the council. Their so called consultations are nothing more then carefully worded questions designed around what they want . As was the case with one on Wild Park. On one of their consultations the council gave carefully worded questions for you to tick. These questions favoured what the council wanted to do (clear Wild Park). I thought the idea of a consultation was for various views to be heard, there was no option on this consultation to leave a comment. The Council so far have cleared 229 Oak trees . Despite the Forestry Commission finding the Council guilty of not having a forestry license they are now going to clear a lot more. The petition with around1800 was ignored.The Councils claim of 69% of people for the clearance,is based on less then 40 people. Who checks the results of consultations, the council! ramble
  • Score: 0

11:10am Fri 28 Sep 12

funkyyoyo says...

could i have £50000 please,my charge inc vat for reading this tripe !!! cheques made payable to --------
could i have £50000 please,my charge inc vat for reading this tripe !!! cheques made payable to -------- funkyyoyo
  • Score: 0

11:12am Fri 28 Sep 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Look H Jarrs, this is about honesty and transparency by councillors not party politics so get off the Green high horse.
The results are being portrayed inaccurately and it would also be wrong to say there's a resounding no. Wrong is wrong, lies are lies.
I am quite sure the Labour group, Tories and Lib Dems have done the same, but here we are with a Green Council and they are doing it and it's wrong.
They cannot wheedle out of the fact that they are telling blatant lies in print.
What is more astonishign is that they supply the figures, then lie as if they think the electorate are too stupid to do basic maths.
What on earth is wrong with KitKat and this lot. They seem in utter disarray.
Look H Jarrs, this is about honesty and transparency by councillors not party politics so get off the Green high horse. The results are being portrayed inaccurately and it would also be wrong to say there's a resounding no. Wrong is wrong, lies are lies. I am quite sure the Labour group, Tories and Lib Dems have done the same, but here we are with a Green Council and they are doing it and it's wrong. They cannot wheedle out of the fact that they are telling blatant lies in print. What is more astonishign is that they supply the figures, then lie as if they think the electorate are too stupid to do basic maths. What on earth is wrong with KitKat and this lot. They seem in utter disarray. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree