I PICKED up a copy of  the Review while I was in Monmouth last week and saw  the several letters  about Northern Quarter.

I moved out of the Forest  12 months last November (partly in disgust) so  I've not seen Paul Morgan's or Graham Morgan's earlier letters but it makes no difference because the reason here is that it is quite clear that  some education of the background would certainly help  those such as Rod Dingwall and  perhaps at the same time refresh  Allan Preest's memory of when he was in the thick of things?

Not surprisingly Andrew Gardiner also seems reluctant to go there – presumably because he was also in the  mix promoting his Rainbow project then; as were Averil Kear, Maurice Bent etc,  probably quite rightly also promoting the preservation of the older Northern buildings, etc.

No doubt they all realise now how easily they were led up  the garden path by the then newly formed Cinderford Regeneration  Board (CRB  – essentially the district council),  established in November 2005 exactly the same time as  the ink  was drying on our short-lived success  with the  last District Plan (formally adopted November 2005).

This should be in no way taken  as chastising any of them  not least because  I think it can safely be said we've all been hoodwinked in one way or another?

Through our Dean Forest Voice (DFV) efforts back then, at the District Plan Review  we practically demolished the previous Northern Arc proposal, securing the removal of most of the proposed land take from the Plan, securing a policy recognising and protecting Forest Waste, including the imposition and recognition of the Statutory Forest  boundary on all future planning related  maps and plans, etc and also establishing  DFV during  the run up.

Hopefully some will recall the programme of public meetings we organised across the Forest and the substantial work with the Countryside Agency's Integrated Rural Development experiment that was supposed to lead to a new blueprint for planning?

What an expensive joke that turned out to be.

At least  we had well and truly bloodied the council's nose by  then, but it was Labour-controlled and in the next breath  they  had embarked on  another review assisted by a new central government policy that altered the Local Plan  criteria and introduced  a Core Strategy process etc.

Backed by  English Partnerships, almost  immediately CRB  commissioned  Halcrow to produce a Cinderford business plan  and the final version was published  in December 2007 announcing  for the first time  a almost identical scheme to Northern Arc, rebranded   Northern Quarter. Check out this link: http://www.fdean.gov.uk/media/Assets/CinderfordRegeneration/documents/final_full_business_plan.pdf ">www.fdean.gov.uk/media/Assets/CinderfordRegeneration/documents/final_full_business_plan.pdf ;

Chapter six of the business plan (rationale and constraints) ignored the fact that the inspector had thrown out the greater part of the Northern Arc land  and instead they justified its re-inclusion by spuriously cherry-picking advantageous comments  from the  inspector's reasons for removal  and outrageously  turning it into a case for the re-inclusion of the  rebranded scheme at the same time more than  adequately  highlighting the  difficulties and risk in the ground (see section 6.6)  

Now you would  think from  these warnings that the logical next step would be to address them before going any further but no.

Instead of taking serious note it was all constructively brushed aside  in preference for a further study by  urban practitioners Alan Baxter by which time coalfield funding had dried up and been lost;and  an embryonic  HCA had appeared on the scene (or rather behind the scene?).        On the assumption that the council had properly  provided Baxter  (who promote themselves as  a multidisciplinary design consultancy)  with a copy of the earlier  Halcrow report  they do not seem to have taken much note and glitzed over the technical difficulties in the ground concentrating more specifically  on consultation which  is what Baxter seems to be more about judging by their eventual  reports (how very convenient?) See http://www.fdean">www.fdean. gov.uk/media/Assets/Cinderford-Regeneration/documents/Cinderford_consultation_statement_April_2011.pdf

A further point worth making is that Halcrow's exercise  also consulted publicly and appears to have failed to attract any measurable support for Northern Arc which was nodded  forward  nevertheless but the way consultation is carried out in the Forest these days it only takes a few to  make a 'significant percentage.'

http://www.fdean.gov.uk/media/Assets/CinderfordRegeneration/documents/">www.fdean.gov.uk/media/Assets/CinderfordRegeneration/documents/ Halcrow_Statement_of_Community_Involvement_SCI_-_Appendix_B.pdf Baxter on the other hand concentrated most effort on consultation, holding among other things stakeholder workshops in schools (captive audience)  and  even consulting on  consultation results.

So it seems  surprising now that all this way down the line so few people seem to have much idea about the NQ proposal and appear to complain about being kept in the dark.

– Vurrister.