Developing the Centre of Nunhead? Not like this!

So after yesterday's parents evening, while waiting for chips, we called in on the consultation about Nunhead Green and the proposed new developments.

This was quite unpleasant.  It didn't feel like a consultaion, really. 

The people there were too keen on the arguments for their proposals, and did not seem to really listen to the concerns of local people.  Whenever we asked a detailed question (eg what are you proposing for the pavement there, what will the slope be like for pedestrians in wheelchairs?  What trees did you mean to grow, and why? (I admit TANH asked a lot about trees; but it is our remit)?  Why has so little grass been retained?  Why so much space for cars, which are neither needed nor wanted?  How does this help meet green targets?  What about the option of turning this into an extension of the Green - can we see that proposal please? ).  Also: if we have to build houses, what will be the typical sale price for the dwellings and how can we halve it?),  they were defensive and unhelpful.  Overall not very good at all.

There should have been independents consulting, not the architects.  In fact I do not believe it helped having the architect there at all.  Pompous and patronising.

A simple example: I asked about the access for the cars and how they would ensure - across the whole pavement - that pedestrians, buggys, wheelchair users would not be inconvenienced.  So no slopes in the pavement.  They failed to answer the question and started talking about the quality of the stone work.  I said that was not helpfull, and actually the pavement should have precedence over the cars (as in National guidance).  They should not put their 'fancy' stonework over the pavement.  They admitted after lots of pressure they hadn't thought about it - and recorded nothing of the dialogue.  So second rate, I thought.

They should have been noting down comments on the spot, not expecting written submissions from people who were pressed for time. 

Overall,  poor I thought in terms of process.

I loathed parts of the architectural solution (like the roof of the hall and the tall chimneys, the excessive car parking (oh, I appear to have mentioned that already)).  They didn't seem to listen.

Another element missing was any discussion of the traffic and disruption that will be caused by building all that stuff.  What are the access requirements, how many lorries per day and for how long?  What are the implications for traffic, polution, pedestrians, etc?

On the plus side, they do seem to have protected a few of the trees - the Chinese Willow and sycamores.  But not all of them.

Sigh. As is clear, I've written this in a rush, and only voiced half my concerns, and the ones I have described I could have explained much better.  Still, I hope the point has been got across. 

Where are the press when you need them?