RBK&C has undertaken two public consultations on Sloane Square.
Both are said to have indicated strong support for a radical change to
Sloane Square, with the second supposedly endorsing the crossroads
design. Save
Sloane Square believes the results of neither consultation
accurately represent what local residents want for the Square for the
following reasons.
April 2003
First Consultation
This was not a genuine consultation. A sample of some 300-400 people
was asked whether they wanted radical change to Sloane Square. There is
no public information on how this sample was chosen, and whether
businesses or households were included. Given the small size of the
sample and the lack of transparency on the selection criteria, the
results, which are said to have shown a two-thirds majority in favour
of change, cannot be replied upon.
January 2005
Second Consultation
The second consultation was more comprehensive. RBK&C sent
consultation brochures to 10,199 households in Chelsea and Belgravia,
and handed out some 10,000 more to passers-by in order to capture the
views of working people and visitors to the area.
The response rate was low. In total, 1,863 replies were sent in: 1,353
of these came from within the consultation area (ie, only one-seventh
of the households consulted actually sent in a response). The Council
reported that just over three-quarters of respondents favoured creating
two public spaces in the Square. However, there are several reasons to
believe that the results of the 2005 consultation are unreliable.
Problems with 2005
Consultation
* The boundaries of the 2005 consultation were drawn so narrowly that
only a small number of households in Chelsea were consulted.
* Far more people – 3,700 – signed Save Sloane
Square petitions objecting to the crossroads scheme than
the 1,430 who said they favoured it in the Council’s
consultation. Furthermore, when RBK&C analysed the petition
signatories, nearly half of those who had previously voted for the
crossroads scheme changed sides once the defects of the scheme were
pointed out to them.
* RBK&C’s consultation document was highly
misleading. It showed mock-up images of the crossroads scheme which
suggested that it was a traffic elimination scheme. Pictures of the two
pedestrian squares were shown with virtually no traffic, despite the
fact that 2,500 vehicles an hour enter the Square in peak periods. The
images also failed to show the multiple traffic lights required to
control the scheme, both in the middle of the crossroads and at each
junction. All street clutter was eliminated, including rubbish bins,
telephone boxes, kiosks and toilets. In other words, RBK&C
showed a utopian dream for pedestrians which would never be realised.
* The consultation document also failed to describe the negative
aspects of the crossroads scheme. It said that only problem with the
scheme was that it would be more difficult to change from one mode of
transport to another because the bus stop would be moved from outside
the station to the King’s Road. It failed to point out that
pedestrians would be unable to cross from one pedestrian square to
another because the crossroads plan could not accommodate a pedestrian
crossing in the middle of the crossroads. It also failed to point out
that the plan requires a four-lane road through the middle of the
Square which pedestrians can cross only when the traffic lights change,
and that taxi journeys would be made more difficult because the taxi
ranks would be shifted to Holbein Mews, making journeys longer, slower
and more expensive.
* The brochure equally failed to point out that the crossroads scheme
would lead to more traffic in surrounding residential streets because
it would require changes to the road system. RBK&C’s
website states that comprehensive traffic modelling was done to arrive
at the design for the crossroads. In fact, no modelling was done on how
the scheme would affect traffic flows in neighbouring streets at the
time the consultation document was issued.
Public Consultations: History 2006
The Council's Commitments of March 2006
March 2006
Promises made by Leader Cockell
Following delivery of the petition organised by Save Sloane Square and its registration as a political party (see "About Us - History"),
the RBK&C Council entered into negotiations with Save Sloane Square
culminating in its agreement to hold the current consultation, in which
residents are offered a choice between the crossroads scheme and the
renovation alternative.
Key details of the agreement are set out in a letter dated 29 March
2006 from the Leader of the Council, Cllr. Merrick Cockell, to the
Chairman of Save Sloane Square, Dr James Thompson, in which the Leader
made a number of commitments on behalf of the Council in connection
with the new consultation. Key commitments include the following:
"We would have two fully worked up and costed sets of
proposals", taking into account " the imposition of congestion
charging, the necessary updating of traffic modelling and so on".
"These would be put to local people and my commitment to you is that the Council would abide by their clear decision".
"The resident consultation should be carried out by an
independent body and your Group would be part of the commissioning
process to ensure there was confidence in the fairness and confidence
of the consultation. We would agree with you the mechanism, the
geographical area to be consulted...."
"Neither I nor the Council have any wish to influence or
steer the outcome but rather that an open process reaches a conclusion
that carries widespread support. The Mayor of London may believe that
the clear results of a full consultation can be ignored - as he has
done with the extension of congestion charging - but I do not.....I
hope....that we can now work to ensure that a fair choice is now put to
local people".
The Leader of the Council repeated some of these commitments in a
speech to the RBK&C Conservative Association at its Annual General
Meeting on 29 March 2006 in Chelsea Town Hall. He stated:
"I have offered the [Save Sloane Square] campaigners full
involvement in agreeing the consultation mechanism.....The process will
be open and fair".
"Most importantly I have stated, and I repeat it here
tonight, that whatever the outcome, the Council will accept the choice
clearly made by local people and that they, you, will determine the
future look of Sloane Square".
"Ken Livingstone may believe that he can consult and then
ignore very strong opposition but I will not lead a Council that
operates like that....We cannot and will not ignore the outcome of a
fair and transparent consultation process".
Click
here to read Cockell's speech to party members
2007 Consultation
2007
CONSULTATION
Click
hereto Vote in the 2007 Consultation It is your last
chance to save Sloane Square.
The 2007 Consultation
Process & Result
The 2007 consultation process has now closed. Here are the key facts about the plan and outcome.
Dates of
Consultation
The
third and final consultation on the future of Sloane Square took place
between 28 February and 29 March 2007. This was the last chance to
save Sloane Square.
Appointment of
ICM to Conduct Consultation
Previous
consultations were conducted by the Council. This time, under pressure
from the residents’ group Save Sloane Square, leading and
independent market researchers ICM were appointed.
Form of
Consultation
The consultation included the
following:
a public
exhibition to open the event;
a postal survey
of all households in the consultation area;
a postal survey
of 500 businesses;
500 in-home
face-to-face surveys of residents;
500 in-street and
exit interviews around Sloane Square;
a deliberative
research event with 150 adults to close the consultation.
All employees of a business, and all
members of a household over the age of 16, were able to express their views.
The
Consultation Area
The
consultation area covered a broad area of Chelsea and Belgravia, unlike
previous consultations. The area stretched from Beaufort Street in the
west to Grosvenor Place in the east, and from Cromwell Gardens/Brompton
Road in the north to Chelsea Embankment in the south.
The Options
The
consultation sampled opinions on two proposals for the Square: the
Save Sloane Square/Atkins Renovation scheme and the Council’s
crossroads plan. Respondents were asked a series of questions about
each proposal and for information on themselves (for example, their age
group).
Voters Outside
the Consultation Area
Anyone,
and not just those in the consultation area, were able to express their views in
the consultation by logging onto the ICM’s website, downloading
the
questionnaire and returning the forms to ICM. The correct web address,
which went live on 28 February, was: www.icmresearch.co.uk/sloanesquare.asp
Results of the
Consultation
ICM will report their findings to the
Council in April. The Council’s response will be forthcoming
in May.
Was
the Consultation Fair?
The consultation was fair
in respect
of ICM’s handling of the process. However, there are many
aspects
of the process which have not been fair.
Preparation of
Renovation Scheme
Atkins and Save Sloane Square were
given only six weeks to
develop the Renovation scheme for the Square from beginning to end.
This six week period included the time over Christmas and New Year. By
contrast, the Council have been working on their crossroads plan for
nearly six years. Despite this lengthy preparation, there is still much
in the crossroads plan which is unfinished and unspecified. The
Atkins/Save Sloane Square Renovation scheme, by contrast, is remarkably
coherent.
Preparation of
Brochure
The
Council have been frustrating to deal with in the preparation of the
brochure. Each side was asked by ICM to submit, in not more than 200
words, the five merits of their proposal. The Council made multiple
objections to the wording of Save Sloane Square’s five
merits,
greatly exacerbating the process. They refused to provide up-to-date
costs of their own crossroads plan, and refused to have Save Sloane
Square’s Renovation scheme costed.
Preparation of
Images
The
process of preparing the images used in the brochure was fraught. Save
Sloane Square is happy with only one of the images for the Renovation
scheme – the view towards the station showing the statue of
Sir
Hans Sloane in the foreground. The view from the station is incomplete
and wrong in many respects – for example, it excludes the bus
stop outside the Hugo Boss shop but includes unpleasant lights around
the central square instead of flag poles as shown in the Atkins design.
But Save Sloane Square was told that there was ‘no more
time’ to make the changes requested.
Absence of
Traffic Information
No
information is given in the consultation document about the traffic
impact of the two proposals. The Council contends that the public is
being asked simply to make a choice between two layouts. This is
completely wrong. The Council’s crossroads plan would have a
major impact on surrounding residential streets. The Renovation scheme
has no impact because all roads remain open and traffic flow is
unchanged.
Breach of Council Commitments
A number
of the Council's commitments have been broken, notably the commitment
that the Council would not seek to steer or influence the outcome of
the consultation. On the contrary, the Council has distributed a stream
of glossy materials to residents in the consultation area urging them
to vote in favour of the crossroads. Save Sloane Square has lacked the
resources to match the Council's vigorous campaign. So instead of the
process being fair, as the Council had promised, it has been heavily
biased in favour of the crossroads scheme.
The 2007 Consultation
The 2007
consultation started at the end of February. It was conducted by
ICM, an independent market research firm, and not the
Council.
We then understood that the Council were withdrawing thier plan
We had the following comment on our
Front Page BUT THEN WE FOUND OUT (on the 30th of May) THEY WERE STILL
PLANNING TO MOVE THE FOUNTAIN. WHY?
Save Sloane Square welcomes Council's withdrawal of Crossroads Plan
On
24 April, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea announced that it
was withdrawing the crossroads plan for Sloane Square.
Dr James Thompson said :'The
third consultation conducted by ICM was an extensive and thorough
exercise. It showed conclusively that the crossroads plan was not the
popular choice for residents, businesses or visitors. ‘We thank the Council for
calling the third consultation in response to our petitions and
approaches, and for funding the development of the alternative
renovation scheme’.
