85 Westwood Rd

Tilehurst

Reading

RG31 5PY

14 March 2007

Dear Mr Smith

RE: TILEHURST COMMUNITY FACILITIES CONSULTATION

I am writing to pass on comments of members of the Globe group about the recent process of consultation about the scheme. I apologise for its late arrival; I do hope that it will be possible to include the comments in any summary that will be prepared for the cabinet paper.

The papers The papers ( 6-sider and the short A5version) were a distinct improvement on previous papers. The lay out was clearer, there was less misleading use of colour, and the text was less ambiguous. The questions were clearer and there was less imprecise language. We do however have some comments, largely based on our experience in talking with people who were unfamiliar with the scheme.

· Although the 4-sider did indicate what was necessary, many did not understand that they needed to seek out the fuller document with the questionnaire to register their views.

· The use of the standard education department colour scheme /layout meant that many people muddled the Meadway consultation paper with this one. The use of the corporate identity was not helpful. Many people told us they had already sent in their reply, but in fact it emerged that they had not sent it in but were referring to the Meadway consultation.

· The fact that the 6-sider was a consultation paper which required answers was not clear- a flash saying please use reply sheet inside would have been clearer. The papers need to be instantly arresting to achieve maximum participation in the process. Busy people need to have documents very clearly presented.

The electronic forms caused some problems. The general public were encouraged to use the on line reply form. People using this method were forced to answer all questions even if they had no views on some of them. This forced process made it difficult to complete the form and did not permit people to say what they thought. If you did not fill in all the answers it was not at all clear whether the form had actually been submitted, so people were left confused.

The availability of papers. Tilehurst Globe members remain very unhappy at the unbalanced approach to delivery of papers. The schools represent only one aspect of the scheme- there are many other interest groups. Groups were not treated even-handedly. The parents and some globe members automatically received the 6–sider. Everyone else had to make special efforts to seek out a form with a reply slip. It was not easy for those without prior information to get hold of copies of the 6-sider. In an election ballot papers are distributed to all in a locality – not a biased sample. The process used by RBC felt like a weighted process. We feel this one off consultation warranted more comprehensive coverage.

Training of staff about the importance of their role in securing the democratic process proved to be inadequate. The poor distribution arrangements in the library – (running out several times during the peak consultation period, with comments from responsible staff like people keep on collecting them) were not acceptable. Tilehurst Globe asked for additional copies, and were offered 20 copies and were told photocopies were not acceptable. Many people lost the opportunity to have their say.

Distribution arrangements at the clinic were worse. Muddles of documents were lost in shelves. The posting box was in an entirely separate room, normally inaccessible to the general public. The public meeting did little to clarify some key issues. No public assurances were given about the future of Blagrave Recreation Ground. Many left feeling disappointed that their concerns were not addressed.

Involvement of local people The total process that Tilehurst has undergone bears little relation to the processes that other areas in Reading enjoy over similarly significant refurbishment/regeneration projects. Ours has been characterised by take it or leave it approach. There has been too little real dialogue and analysis. There has not been the iterative process we have observed in action elsewhere. There have been few invitations to participate, and little public recognition of the validity of our interest. We have seen the much-vaunted terms like ‘Children Centre’ of the first consultation quietly dropped without comment in the latest exercise. The Civic Centre regeneration consultation has involved models, open discussion with planners and evident listening to the comments of citizens. The decision to treat the development of a local centre in a more cursory way has led to dissatisfaction and less satisfactory solutions. We look forward to far more involvement than was indicated at the public meeting.

Relationship with general planning process The LDF consultative papers refer to local centres, however this scheme is presented in isolation from such general strategic considerations. The scheme pre-empts any consideration of Tilehurst Local Centre . If accepted any consideration of Tilehurst Centre will be largely of theoretical interest.

Yours sincerely

Jenny Cottee ( key member ,and on behalf of Tilehurst Globe )

cc Vicky Watsham