Mindful of the website’s claim that “Planning should happen with people; not to them”,  we next looked at two recent PR campaigns where Curtin&Co persuasion techniques were used on behalf of developers. In both cases their case officer appears to have been Dave Shetcliffe (23), the man chosen to give Fineshade the Curtin treatment.

 

1) Residential development

 

Firstly there was Thanington Park, a large residential development in Canterbury, Kent.  See the website set up by Curtin&Co

 

The public part of the community consultation was that Pentland Properties invited Canterbury residents to attend a two-day public exhibition at which members of the project team were on hand to answer questions. Details of the proposals were shown on 10 exhibition boards. What individual lobbying of politicians, councilors and MPs took place behind the scenes, Curtin’s stock-in-trade, is unknown.

 

The planning application was eventually granted planning approval when the developer made a series of offers, particularly to provide a new hospice building and spend large amounts on improving transport links. See planning website here.

 

278 comments had been received many from objectors but also including much support because of the proposed new hospice.  But objectors were particularly scathing of the role of Curtin&Co. Two examples are here:

 

Curtin & co analysis does not ask the public if they believe these proposals are right for this particular green field site. They are broad and ask about 'Canterbury' in general terms and at best only 30% agree to many of their questions.

 

Pentland’s misleading publicity says” 'From the consultation exercises it has become evident that the majority of local residents welcome the redevelopment of this site and were very positive about Pentland Properties Ltd's proposals'. This is untrue there are very few local residents in favour of this catastrophic development of an area of outstanding natural beauty. …To state that local residents are ambivalent to the proposals is extremely insulting and untrue.

 

These people do not seem to have appreciated Curtins’ lauded “genuine engagement and consultation”: but perhaps they were thought to be members of protest groups and therefore ignored, the techique recommended in Curtin's book.

 

2) Hotel in conservation area

 

A second example is the redevelopment of Tower Bridge Magistrates Court, a listed building, to create a large hotel in a Conservation Area in central London.

 

The website apparently constructed by Curtin&Co is here and rather similar to the first example.

 

Again a two-day exhibition was staged with members of the project team on hand to answer questions. Attendees were given the opportunity to view exhibition boards and look around the site.  At the time of writing, Southwark Council’s decision is pending. See their planning website.

 

Here local feeling appears to have been mainly hostile as there were few discernable benefits to members of the local community, many of whose properties would be overshadowed by the proposed new building.

 

Once again Curtin&Co’s methods were specifically criticized, this time in great detail. (It's well worth reading the persuasion techniques used here.)

 

It is my opinion that consultation on this proposed development has been unsatisfactory. It has been superficial and has avoided detailed conversation with those most affected at neighbouring properties. The Curtin & Co. report reaches a conclusion that is based purely on supposition and not at all on fact. Curtin & Co's report sets out a chronology of the consultation. It starts in September 2014 yet it was 6 months before discussions started with one of the bodies representing 1 group of neighbouring home owners. There has been an inconsistent approach to dialogue with the bodies representing the 4 most seriously affected groups of homes. This has ranged from multiple meetings with 1 body to none with another. It was 10 months before the developer met with the representatives of 3-17a Queen Elizabeth Street and Candishe House. That was less than 1 month before the planning application was submitted and too late to have any substantive dialogue. The meeting comprised of a one way delivery of information and was not a consultation. One question of considerable significance was asked, about the re-siting of 2 principle entrances from Boss Street to Queen Elizabeth Street, and an answer was promised within a week. More than 2 months later and with the planning application submitted the question remains unanswered. This question is now the subject of a Freedom of Information request and should be answered before any decision is taken by Southwark. Much is made of the public exhibition and the resulting feedback. In fact Curtin & Co’s statement is almost entirely taken up with a description of the exhibition with merely a few lines on community involvement. Drawing such firm conclusions, as it does, from such a highly speculative source is unreasonable and irresponsible. There is no sound statistical or credible market research basis for the support that is implied. The report would only be credible if it presented information from meetings with residents groups to balance the unscientific survey conclusions.

 

And yet Curtin&Co espouse the view that “Planning should happen with people; not to them”!

It appears that this is pure PR spin - what a surprise!