Eco-town consultation branded a 'sham' by MP

9 December 2008

Their failure to include BARD’s evidence calls this so-called commitment to local communities into question

Stratford MP John Maples has slammed the government's eco-town consultation process as a sham

STRATFORD MP John Maples has condemned the current eco-town consultation as a ‘sham’ after a local campaign group was missed off a list of respondents to the proposals.

Better Acceptable Responsible Development’s (BARD) submission to the Middle Quinton development did not feature in the summary of consultation responses drawn up by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG).

It should have appeared in appendix 1 of the document; Eco-towns: living a greener future - summary of consultation responses Mr Maples said: “There has been repeated emphasis by the DCLG on the need for community consultation, but their failure to include BARD’s evidence in the list of responses calls this so-called commitment to local communities into question. They and I can only draw the conclusion that their submission was not even read and that the consultation is a sham.”

Mr Maples has vented his anger in a letter to Margaret Beckett MP, minister for housing.

In it, he demanded to know why other local campaign groups had been acknowledged but BARD remained absent.

“BARD spent a large amount of time and money responding to the consultation, including compiling a comprehensive sustainability appraisal,” he said. “It seems totally misleading to suggest that their views were considered, given that they did not even merit a mention in the report.”

He has asked the housing minister to reassure his constituents that their responses are being taken seriously.

Mr Maples also branded the consultation at the recent eco-town roadshows, that came to Stratford and Evesham, as poor.

He expressed serious concerns that the feedback form used by the DCLG implied that opponents to the development did not want a ‘greener’ Stratford.

He said: “The question about what people would be willing to do ‘in order to be more green’ seems disingenuous, implying that being green means unconditionally accepting the eco-town proposal without questioning its impact on local communities.”