From The Guardian - Society Letters, 28.6.00 In response to an article about community consultation in Brazil. BUDD member Mike Aiken wrote to point out that here in Brighton it is the Council who calls the shots, turning public consultation into a facade for old-fashioned 'Council knows best' attitudes. Read the letter

Since the last BUDD newsletter in April, the Council Planning Brief for Brighton Station Site has been published. This vital document is the most important opportunity the Council has to influence the type of development that could gain planning approval on the Station Site. It sets in place the policy framework and conditions against which development applications for the site will be judged. Once adopted the Brief will be scrutinised in minute detail by developers along with their designers, financiers and lawyers for any statements that support their applications and add fuel to their arguments.

The Brief puts forward a vision for the site of a 'vibrant mixed use urban quarter' that is an 'exemplar of 21st century sustainable urban development'. It includes proposals for offices, live-work space, small scale retail and housing, of which a substantial percentage should be affordable. It writes of the Council's strategy of achieving a 'modal shift in favour of public transport, walking and cycling, away from the private car'.

Much of this is commendable, but closer reading tells a different story. The Brief also invites applications for a 'foodstore' only marginally smaller than a superstore (as defined in government guidelines). Council planners estimate that an accompanying car park would have around 200 short-stay places. The traffic generated through such a scheme would make it impossible for the Council to achieve its objectives on transport. There are currently no proposals for bus access to the site, which will mean that non-car users are likely to lose out.

Edge-of-centre supermarkets have been shown to have a detrimental effect on local businesses and small retailers, thus there are serious questions about whether the development would help regenerate the London Road.

Although the Brief suggests that locations on or near the London Road should be considered first, Sainsbury's will undoubtedly pay its consultants to argue that none is suitable.

In effect our Council has drawn up a Brief containing glaring contradictions. It appears to address the valid concerns of local people by talking up sustainability. Yet in practice it encourages quite the opposite and opens the door for a specific development: the Sainsbury's-led New England Consortium, which has stated that it hopes to start building by next Spring. It dismisses those aspects of public consultation that go against the Council¹s decisions.

So, how did it come to this?

The Working Group process - a reminder

The Working Group was set up following Community Planning Event where the majority of the 500 people attending objected to a traffic-generating supermarket or large retail element. Following this, the Council set up a Working Group to 'develop the ideas that came from the CPE'. It excluded many stakeholders such as tenants on the site, residents¹ groups and even the Brighton Society. Railtrack were not only included but at the second meeting the Chair invited a presentation from the New England Consortium (Sainsbury's, Railtrack et al). It was clear that some representatives on the Group saw the whole process as a means to negotiate with the Consortium rather than to fulfil the Group's brief. (See the April issue of BUDD news for more on this)

At the final meeting, all members of the Working Group endorsed the Planning Brief except BUDD and the Green Party. In effect the Council can claim that the Brief is approved by residents and traders of the North Laine, London Road and Seven Dials. BUDD and the Green¹s rejection reflected the views of the 200 people at BUDD¹s public meeting in April, who again expressed concerns about the impact of a supermarket on traffic and on retail in the London Road, and a desire for creative alternatives.

Council consultants agree that other schemes are deliverable and viable. However, at the Working Group, no serious alternatives were considered. Local architects RH Partnerships have been unable to interest potential developers in their housing-led proposals, as long as the Sainsbury's scheme is alive.

The Brief's inclusion of a supermarket has the effect of unnecessarily inflating the cost of the land, to the benefit of Railtrack, and preventing the emergence of more sustainable alternatives. In refusing to exercise its power to develop strong planning policies, it has lost its only chance to influence the shape of development on this crucial brownfield site. The notion that a supermarket-led scheme away from the high street frontage, with its associated increase in car-dependence, is an exemplar of 21st century sustainable urban development is profoundly depressing.

The Council argues that it has included a number of 'checks and balances' in the Brief. Developers will have to provide evidence of the qualitative need for a supermarket, that it will not increase traffic in the area, and that it will help regenerate the London Road. Highly paid consultants are employed to do just this as they did in relation to the Lewes Road superstore, and we know what happened there. The Brief has been written specifically to accommodate the Sainsbury's application and the 'checks and balances' are merely hoops for them to jump through.

Chair of the Working Group Cllr. John Ballance has shown little respect for local people¹s views. He stated he 'would not be accountable to a public meeting', wrote to the press claiming that BUDD's public meeting had 'muddied the waters' and condemned opposition to the supermarket scheme as 'knee jerk'. Cllr Hermitage (Seven Dials) alleged she had witnessed 'aggression, intimidation and bullying' at the BUDD meeting in April, but has failed to supply evidence of this. Perhaps she was referring to local people¹s anger at the Council's use of 'consultation' only to tell us what¹s good for us.