Responses to Letter: The Purpose of the London Road Stakeholder Meetings is to Design the Consultation Process

1. Pat Gallagher Reply

   August 31, 2023 at 4:06 pm

   I do apologise to Cllr Potter for not using the same word as he would have chosen to describe my reading of the stakeholder group purpose. My selection of the word “means” instead of “process” is in some online dictionary definitions a synonym.

   For example: Google’s English dictionary, provided by Oxford Languages defines “Means” as “(noun): an action or system by which a result is achieved; a method. Similar: method; way; manner; mode; measure; fashion; process.

   I had briefed myself via the London Road Action Group website, where the role of the group is explained, and if my paraphrase of the words “Contribute to the creation of an engagement plan for the scheme” by replacing them with “the means that will provide the public/local community with sufficient and appropriate information”, I can only plead the Humpty Dumpty excuse: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
   Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking Glass

   However, I was well aware of what I intended to put across.
   • George Potter Reply

     September 1, 2023 at 3:22 pm

     I would maintain that there is a quite significant, and important, distinction and difference between the stakeholders themselves being the “means” (which is to say, the conduit of information) by which the public will be informed, versus the stakeholders being involved in determining what the “means” will be.

     It is the difference between “I will deliver this parcel to your house” and “I will choose the delivery company which will deliver this parcel to your house”. In the former scenario I am making the delivery myself, in the latter scenario it is a delivery company who are making the delivery.

     I do not think that distinction is difficult to understand, but since it appears to have been unclear I can only apologise if my word choice has caused any confusion.

     To be absolutely clear, the stakeholders are not, and never were, the mechanism by which information was to be distributed to the public. The mechanism to distribute information was always intended to be the consultation itself.

     So the fact that the stakeholders have not been the mechanism for distributing information to the public is not, as Mr Gallagher suggested, a departure from the agreed process, but is in fact exactly what the agreed process dictated.

     George Potter is the Lib Dem county councillor for Guildford East and borough councillor for Burpham
2. John Cooke Reply

   August 31, 2023 at 5:18 pm

   Bureaucracy at its best: they’re having a meeting about having a meeting.
3. Malcolm Stanier Reply

   September 1, 2023 at 10:04 am

   I love Cllr Potter’s statement “and will then be able to give their informed opinions on the scheme”. These will be the opinions that might possibly lead to minor modifications but basically, the council will impose a scheme that nobody asked for and will benefit a few hundred cyclists, all to the detriment of motorists, most of the population of Burpham and the people passing through it, all for £4 million.

   If I thought there was a cat in hell’s chance of drivers converting to cycling in the numbers that the proponents suggest, there might be some merit to the scheme, but I fear that they are deluded.
4. Peter Blow Reply

   September 1, 2023 at 4:51 pm

   To be fair to Cllr Potter, I don’t think that was the bit he was saying was incorrect.

   “provide the public/local community with sufficient and appropriate information to reach a conclusion about whether the cycle scheme should proceed”

   and

   “the public and local community will be provided with the information on the scheme and will be consulted about it.”

   are very different.

   The first implies some kind of public vote, the second just that the public can give their opinion.
5. Derek Payne Reply

   September 2, 2023 at 10:38 am

   In response to Cllr Potter’s comments, the discussions on process at the meetings have been very limited other than to confirm an eight-week consultation period starting September 18, with four drop-in sessions.

   There has been no discussion on the locations or format of the drop-in sessions; what the inputs and outputs will be; how they will run; who will attend from SCC/STRG; who will take notes; how feedback will be collected; next steps by SCC post consultation; etc.

   Regarding inputs, I can only guess at this point, but maybe it will be the plan of London Road post-implementation; the question set we have been looking to produce; the implementation plan itself; modelling details; likely benefits (eg safety; pollution).

   None of these are yet in place, and we are awaiting visibility of the proposed documents from SCC.

   This is of concern, as I struggle to understand how we can finalise a question set without seeing the other related documents.