London Assembly Regeneration Committee

Background brief
Tuesday 1 March 2016
Regeneration Committee meeting, Committee Room 5 10:00
Link to directions and map
On Tuesday 1 March 2016, the London Assemblys Regeneration Committee will be holding a
meeting to examine the role that public consultation plays on major regeneration projects.
The meeting will discuss formal and informal methods of consultation, looking at how these have
been used during the planning process for Brent Cross Cricklewood. It will then look at the
influence that consultation has on the provision of social infrastructure and how social impacts
can be measured.
More details about the Regeneration Committees work including transcripts of previous
meetings can be found here: https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/londonassembly/regeneration-committee-0
The meeting format will take place as a single panel much like a Parliamentary Select Committee
with Assembly Members putting questions to our invited experts. Meetings usually last for
around two hours, but may be longer than this.

Experts on the panel include:

Debbie Jackson, Assistant Director for Regeneration, GLA

Pat Turnball, Chair, London Tenants Federation
Ciron Edwards, Associate Director, Soundings
Cath Shaw, Lead Commissioner: Enterprise & Regeneration, London Borough of Barnet
Pauline McKinnell, Secretary, Cricklewood Community Forum

The role of consultation

The need for consultation
- Consultation can help identify what a community wants from a new development. Effective
public engagement can be critical to the success of a development. As the private consultation
providers Soundings argue, consultation and engagement woven into the design development
process leads to a better, more integrated, design.1 Government guidance on regeneration
states that communities should be in the driving seat on new developments.2
- The Mayors Design Advisory Group (MDAG) warns that should developers fail to engage, this
could breed distrust of development that presents a greater obstacle for future schemes.3
Timing is also very important- while there is more interest in the later stages of a planning
application, this is also the time when developers are least willing to negotiate. The MDAG
1

Soundings, 2016, What we do

DCLG, 2012, Regeneration to enable growth: A toolkit supporting community-led regeneration
3
GLA, 2015, Mayors Design Advisory Group: Growing London, p.21
2

advises that public engagement should take place further upstream, so that it can inform the
principles of development before they are fixed.4 Research by the Princes Trust for Building
Communities has found that communities prefer to be consulted from the first stage of a
project.5
- Developers and local authorities will often use multiple informal stages of consultation prior to
submitting a planning application which is then subject to a formal statutory consultation. In
the case of some local authorities, such as the London Borough of Barnet, pre-application
consultation is required on all major developments.6 This is then followed by a short period of
formal statutory consultation. The methods used during these consultation stages can be
broadly understood as listening to the public and meeting the public, followed by those used
during the final statutory consultation process.
Listening to the public
- Local authorities and developers can take a more proactive approach to consultation and reach
out to the public to hear their views. This could include through a street- or door-to-door
survey, or through web-based consultation such as sending email bulletins, surveys or
contacting a database of people. An example of this is Talk London, a database used by the
Mayor to collect opinions on public policy challenges in London.7 This has a number of
advantages, in that the consultation will reach a wide variety of people with little effort, who
are more likely to respond as they have already agreed to be contacted.
- Nonetheless, these methods may mean that the consulting organisation only hears from
members of the public who make an effort to respond, meaning that they could end up
hearing from the same names each time. In addition, web-based consultation is difficult to
target geographically and it may miss out on sections of the population who may not have
access to the internet.8
Meeting the public
- The MDAG suggests that consultation should move to become less reactive, earlier in the
process and more accessible, transparent, and representative.9 The most proactive approach
to consultation is to actually go out and meet the public. The Princes Trust for Building
Communities has found that 73 per cent of people prefer to be consulted face-to-face, and
81 per cent of people prefer open consultation, where they can represent their own views.10
This approach is widely used by private consultation companies, such as Soundings, Make
Good and the London Communications Agency (LCA), and often supplements other forms of
consultation, such as surveys or letters.
- These meetings come in a wide variety of forms, from the traditional question and answer
public meeting through to large participatory roundtable sessions or intensive focus groups.
Public meetings give large numbers of people the opportunity to have their say, and give the
consulting organisation the opportunity to explain the development plans and gather
feedback. Nonetheless, public meetings are expensive to run, require knowledgeable
4

Ibid., p.22
Princes Foundation for Building Community, 2014, Housing Communities: What People Want
6
London Borough of Barnet, 2015, Local Plan: Statement of Community Involvement
7
Talk London website, 2016
8
Community Places, 2014, Community Planning Toolkit: Community Engagement
9
GLA, 2015, Mayors Design Advisory Group: Growing London, p.21
10
Princes Foundation for Building Community, 2014, Housing Communities: What People Want, p.15
5

facilitation, can be highly contentious and may also be attended only by those already actively
involved in the community, excluding other voices.11
- There are also more informal approaches to community engagement. These can vary widely
from setting up street stalls at public events to visiting local schools, community centres or
care homes to holding art and creativity sessions with local people. For instance, Soundings
used Exchange and Explore ideas sessions with the community at The Wharves in Deptford to
look in depth at key issues raised through the consultation process.12 These events typically
require large amounts of time and money and may deliver a mixed quality of responses.
However, they may also allow developers to target difficult-to-reach sections of the
population, or to benefit from greater visibility.
Statutory consultation methods
- Statutory consultation is used to inform the councils final decision on a planning application.
Article 15 of the Development Management Procedure Order 2015 sets out the minimum
requirements for publicising a statutory consultation, including setting up notices on or near
to the land to which the application relates, as well as advertising the application in local
newspapers and on the authoritys website.13 The time period for consultation is a minimum of
21 days, or 14 days where a notice is published in a newspaper.
- The low cost of statutory consultation financially and in staff time may mean that restricting
consultation to the statutory stage may be attractive to local authorities and developers.
However statutory consultation does not typically lead to a strong response from the local
community, possibly because they are inadequate at communicating the key characteristics of
a scheme to a non-professional audience.14 Since these responses are used by councillors to
inform their final decision on the planning application, this could be to the detriment of earlier
informal consultation stages which may have gained a strong response from the community.
Why do we consult and what works?
Members may follow up with questions on:
- Why is consultation important and what does it add to the development process?
- How does the GLA Regeneration Team consider consultation in its work?
- How do we tailor consultation to produce the best results?
- Do members of the public feel included in the consultation process and what more could be
done to encourage their involvement?

11

Community Places, 2014, Community Planning Toolkit: Community Engagement

The Wharves Deptford, 2016, Consultation
13
DCLG, 2016, Planning Practice Guidance, Consultation and pre-decision matters: Public consultation
14
GLA, 2015, Mayors Design Advisory Group: Growing London, p.22
12

Consultation and Regeneration: A case study

- Brent Cross Cricklewood (BXC) is a 4.5 billion regeneration project in the London Borough of
Barnet, which was granted consent in October 2010. Under development by Hammerson and
Standard Life, the scheme will create a new town centre through the redevelopment of Brent
Cross Shopping Centre. The redevelopment will bring forward 7,500 new homes, 27,000 jobs,
the rebuilding of three schools, new parks and community facilities, a new Thameslink station
and major road and public transport improvements.15 The project will also bring forward a new
flora-covered pedestrian living bridge linking the north and south sides of the site over the
A406 North Circular Road.
- Prior to planning consent in October 2010, BXC underwent two phases of informal
consultation in 2006 and 2007, a process that reached almost 3,000 people. The scheme
underwent two further phases of informal consultation in 2013 and 2014, first as part of a
Section 73 application to amend the original planning consent to introduce the living bridge
among other things and later as part of an extension of the site northwards known as RMA
1A North.16 Each of these phases was followed by a period of statutory consultation by the
London Borough of Barnet lasting 28 days.17
- Barnets Statement of Community Involvement stipulates that pre-application consultation
should enable communities to have an influence on a planning proposal before it is
finalised.18 It suggests that this could take the form of exhibitions, presentations, workshops
or simply a letter or mail shot. The 2010 consultation used a mobile exhibition unit the BXC
Messenger, a leaflet drop to 34,000 households and businesses, regular mailings to the
community, as well as meetings with the public and community workshops. The consultations
were designed to introduce the proposals and the development partners and to provide more
specific detail on the anticipated phasing and timetables, transport improvements,
Clitterhouse Playing Fields and environmental initiatives. The LCA argues that the process
was an exemplary consultation which goes well beyond the statutory requirements set out in
Barnet Councils Statement of Community Involvement.19
- Subsequent consultation phases in 2013 and 2014 also made use of a variety of different
consultation methods. These consultation phases were designed to remind people about the
consented masterplan and what already has permission,20 to engage with the public and
consider and respond to comments and questions. This included public exhibitions at local
venues, meetings with stakeholders, adverts in local newspapers and a flyer campaign.
- The consultation process revealed strong public support for the scheme. The London
Communications Agency (LCA), reports that there was 81.6 per cent support in 201321 and
47.3 per cent support in 2014.22 Similar figures are not available for the original planning

15

Brent Cross Cricklewood, 2016, About

LCA, 2015, Statement of Community Involvement, p.4
17
London Borough of Barnet, 2015, Local Plan: Statement of Community Involvement
18
Ibid.
19
LCA, 2008, BXC19 Statement of Community Involvement, p.2
20
LCA, 2015, Statement of Community Involvement, p.4
21
Ibid., p. 42
22
LCA, 2015, Statement of Community Involvement
16

application in 2010, although the LCA argues that among the 3,000 people who visited the
BXC Messenger and the public exhibitions there was strong public support for the plans.23
- Nonetheless there has been strong criticism from a number of community groups. The
Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross Cricklewood Regeneration (the Coalition), which
represents a large number of community groups in the Brent Cross area, are opposed to the
regeneration plans. The group has criticised the original 2010 planning application,24 citing a
lack of consultation of residents in the neighbouring boroughs of Camden and Brent, the
wider impact of pollution and congestion on northwest London and the fact that Barnet has
supported the plans and is also a major landowner in the scheme.25
- Furthermore, the large size of BXC means that consultation on the whole scheme could have
glossed over resistance to specific aspects of the plans. At BXC, the use of two compulsory
purchase orders (CPOs), approved by Barnet in March 2015, has been particularly
controversial among some sections of the community. CPO2, an order to purchase parts of the
Whitefield Estate in order to construct the living bridge has drawn resistance from the
Cricklewood Community Forum (CCF- a member of the Coalition) and residents of the
Whitefield Estate. Pauline McKinnell from the CCF has argued that communities would have
to start again and make a new home for themselves.26 The council has assured that all
existing socially rented homes on the Whitefield Estate will be reprovided27 and it is due to
open the CPOs to public enquiry in May 2016.28
- The developer has defended the bridge on the basis that it attracted 90.8 per cent support
among those asked about it during the consultation.29 However, it is not clear from the
questions asked whether supporters were aware that the bridge would come at the cost of
demolishing the Whitefield Estate. A lack of detail in consultation, covering only the highly
visible or superficial aspects of the development have been criticised by the Housing
Committees Knock it Down or Do it Up? report on estate regeneration30 and by the Princes
Trust for Building Communities as potentially obscuring discontent or opposition.31

LCA, 2013, BXC19 Revised Statement of Community Involvement

Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross Cricklewood Redevelopment, 2010, Lobby on Tuesday 9 March, for Call-In
25
Ibid.
26
This Local London, 2014, 'It will be a living hell' - anger as Brent Cross Regeneration Project approved by Barnet
Borough Council's planning committee
27
London Borough of Barnet, 2013, Planning Application F/04687/13
28
Brent Cross Cricklewood, 2015, Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO)
29
LCA, 2015, Statement of Community Involvement
30
London Assembly Housing Committee, 2015, Knock it Down or Do it Up? The challenge of estate regeneration
31
Princes Foundation for Building Community, 2014, Housing Communities: What People Want, p.14
23
24

What can we learn about the complexity of the consultation process from Brent Cross
Cricklewood?
Members may follow up with questions on:
- What consultation was carried out during the planning process for Brent Cross Cricklewood?
- What particular challenges were there in working with the community?
- Why were some community groups unhappy with the consultation process?
- What more could be done to make the consultation process more transparent and accessible?

Consultation and social infrastructure

- Public consultation can help shape the type of social infrastructure that is provided in a major
development or regeneration project. In his Social Infrastructure SPG, the Mayor notes that
community engagement is a powerful mechanism for identifying new approaches and
solutions to the delivery of social infrastructure, although it may require specialist support.32
He also argues that communities should be involved as early as possible in the approach.
- Communities can have strong opinions on the social infrastructure that they would most like
to see in their local areas- the Princes Foundation for Building Communitys research on its
past projects from both London and the UK has found that 91 per cent of people want more
open space, while 81 per cent of people want new community facilities.33 This can help
strengthen calls for more social infrastructure. For example during the 2013 consultation for
the Section 73 planning application for BXC, there were 11 suggestions for new community
facilities, particularly sports facilities.34 By the time of the RMA 1A North application in 2014,
the new application included a 5.6 million investment in Clitterhouse Playing Fields, including
a wide variety of new sports facilities, such as a multi-use games area.35
- Communities can also play an important role in protecting social infrastructure that would
otherwise have been lost. For instance at the Wharves in Deptford, which Soundings worked
on, local people secured the Victoria pub for use as a training kitchen and music studio despite
initial plans for demolition.36 In Brent Cross, the community worked to secure the continued
use of Clitterhouse Farm, which initial proposals had marked for demolition. Following the
developers consultation, the proposals were reconsidered to allow more mixed use of the
space and possible retention of the farm.37
- However, the consultation process can miss or underestimate the importance of social
infrastructure to local communities. An example of this is resistance to the development of a
small open space outside B&Q in Cricklewood as part of the regeneration plans. Permission
was granted in 2010 for Pocket Living to build 42 homes as well as a series of retail units on
32

GLA, 2014, Social Infrastructure SPG, p.22

Princes Foundation for Building Community, 2014, Housing Communities: What People Want
34
LCA, 2013, BXC19 Revised Statement of Community Involvement, p.49
35
LCA, 2015, Statement of Community Involvement, p.30
36
The Wharves Deptford, 2015, Statement of Community Involvement: Executive Summary
37
LCA, 2015, Statement of Community Involvement
33

the site. However, community groups have since been critical of the perceived lack of
consultation, arguing that the space was the only green space in Cricklewood and that it
should not be included in the regeneration plans.38 Barnet responded by suspending plans for
the site to allow ward councillors more time for engagement with the community, although
plans for the redevelopment of the park remain in place.39
- The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) could give communities a greater say in the provision
of social infrastructure in their local areas. Introduced in 2008, CIL is used by local authorities
and the Mayor to extract payment at a fixed rate from developers for investment in new
infrastructure.40 With the Localism Act (2011), the Government has set out that local
authorities will need to allocate a meaningful proportion of levy revenues raised in each
neighbourhood back to that neighbourhood.41 For example, the Highgate Neighbourhood
Forum in Camden has been given the power to determine how CIL is spent as part of its
neighbourhood plan.42
- If communities are to be more involved in the delivery of social infrastructure, it may help
them to understand if and how their input affects the social infrastructure that is ultimately
provided. For example the MDAG has called for the Mayor to make an easy to understand
summary of Section 106 terms as part of Stage 2 planning reports.43
What contribution can the public make to social infrastructure?
Members may follow up with questions on:
- How can we better balance the needs of communities, developers and local authorities when it
comes to providing social infrastructure?
- What opportunities have been brought forward by the Localism Act (2011) and Community
Infrastructure Levy?
- What other methods could be used to better empower communities to take an active role in
determining social infrastructure provision?

38

Mr Reasonable, 2015, Act to save Cricklewood's last green open space from Barnet Council's land grab
Barnet Times, 2015, Festival sheds light on threat to only green space in area
40
DCLG, 2011, Community Infrastructure Levy: An overview
41
Ibid.
42
Highgate Neighbourhood Forum, 2016, Draft Local Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Spending List
43
GLA, 2015, Mayors Design Advisory Group: Growing London
39