Who are these stakeholders and what stake do they represent?

Hi

I read about a meeting of stakeholders.  This is all good news but I think Haslemere needs to know who these stakeholders are and what stake they represent. Only when that is well communicated can everyone know if they are represented. Why not publish that information on the web site and in the Herald. Contact details also need to be included otherwise they should NOT be allowed to represent their interest group.

Once that is done the next thing that needs communicating is the detail process that is to be followed  i.e. how are we going to get to a reasonable conclusion.

Only after the above has been done can the stakeholder group sensible consider what each group wants and how that is all to be reconciled.

In simple summary – address the WHO, HOW and WHAT in this order.

What does HAG think about the above?

Regards

 

David

From: David Boyd <address removed>

Subject: Stakeholders

This mail is sent via contact form on Haslemere Parking http://haslemereparking.com

4 comments for “Who are these stakeholders and what stake do they represent?

  1. snmulliner
    25/06/2012 at 11:29

    Dear All,

    I reproduce an e-mail I have just sent to my Waverley Borough Council (WBC) colleagues about the “compass-setting” meeting held last Thursday which will hopefully shed some light and reduce speculation. You could not really call it a stakeholders’ meeting because so few were there. I think its main purpose was to ensure that the following day’s Local Committee had the comfort of knowing that Surrey County Council (SCC) had taken at least one step since the announcement in May that all parking proposals had been put on hold pending proper consultation.

    For my sins I have been re-appointed Haslemere Town Council’s parking spokesman for 2012/13 and I intend to use this excellent web-site to keep everyone up to date with all developments. This matter has to be treated with 100% transparency and there should be no surprises of any nature.

    One of the issues that has cropped up since Thursday is the news that Resident Only Permits (ROPs) were to be granted for some “select” roads with the implication that no other roads would benefit. The implication is dead wrong. The general principle is that the consultation must embrace both roads with ROP needs and the roads nearby which might be affected. There are some “select” roads where the knock-on effects of ROPs are expected to be minimal (King’s Road is the classic example but there are others) and there is therefore a case for introducing ROPs there without undue delay (we are still talking months because we have to operate in SCC time and they have to operate within the law and the law does not hurry!). This does NOT mean that other roads will not benefit from ROP in due course. It is just that more work needs to be done and that is where the consultation will be especially useful and relevant.

    Here is the e-mail:

    An initial “compass-setting” meeting was held at the Museum last Thursday attended by:
    SCC: John Furey (Cabinet Member for Infrastructure and Environment), Steve Renshaw, Richard Bolton (officer now in charge of the Haslemere “working group”), David Curl and David North
    HTC: Cyndy Lancaster, Stephen Mulliner
    Chamber of Trade: Julianne Evans
    Haslemere Society: Robert Serman
    Haslemere Action Group: Jerry and Nikki Barton
    Wey Hill Neighbourhood Planning Forum: Lesley Banfield

    Apologies were received from Robert Knowles and Carole King as WBC representatives and some others.

    We are awaiting the formal notes of the meeting but the gist was that everyone is committed to working together to ensure effective Haslemere-wide consultation on short, medium and long term transport issues.

    The short term means ROP in practice and this is the first focus of the proper consultation. There is enthusiasm for introducing ROP for the “obvious” or “uncontroversial” roads (e.g. King’s Road) as soon as possible which in practice means a formal proposal at the September Local Committee and implementation in the months after that. Other ROP will take a little longer to agree in detail and common sense suggests that the December Local Committee is the first target date for that. This may work out well if the extra 80 spaces at the Station come on stream in early 2013.

    The meeting did not spend much time on what the consultation would look like in practice and my impression, shared by the Bartons, is that the officers do not have any firm views about this aspect. Hence it seems that this will have to be left to the locals to implement. The important element is that consultation conclusions are fed into the process before the next officer’s report is drafted and that, if officers and consultees differ on a matter, there is an opportunity for actual discussion at a meeting. This will be a quite different process from the normal one where officers produce a first report (aided by whatever data they can acquire), wait for public comments and then draft a second report which goes before the Local Committee.

    We also discussed an expanded role for the Task Group which reports to the Local Committee. John Furey proposed amending its terms of reference to allow meetings to be held in public and its proceedings made public. However, I gather that the Local Committee held last Friday felt that nothing could be done until a review of the operation of Local Committees was completed. Robert – do you know when this is expected?
    Hence it seems likely that the consultation will have to feed in to the officer’s first report without using the Task Group. It is not a matter of great moment, I suspect.

    There will be organised a meeting of stakeholders soon to bring everyone up to speed and a timetable of events agreed. One of the key elements will be a public event (or two) at which any resident can come to a venue and inspect plans and make comments. This is the approach that was used for the Hindhead Concept Statement, the Haslemere Healthcheck and Transition Town Haslemere. It ticks a huge box because it gives everyone the opportunity to make a contribution.

    Regards,

    Stephen

  2. David
    25/06/2012 at 13:55

    Well it’s a start but I reiterate “Haslemere needs to know who these stakeholders are and what stake they represent”. Let’s use this web site to communicate that, starting today! Haslemere residents can then add missing or even request the remove of unnecessary or duplicated stakeholders. In my professional life I have seen how getting the correct stakeholders, and only the correct stakeholders, is crucial to a successful outcome.

    Regards

    David

  3. Victorialeake
    25/06/2012 at 13:59

    Hear Hear. Democracy at last. Never thought I would see it. Well done Stephen and everyone else.

  4. Victorialeake
    26/06/2012 at 07:31

    We should plan long term for Haslemere 10/20 years time. Look at the developments eg housing developments estates springing up in and around Haslemere. How many houses does the government plan to build in the surrounding area? Perhaps everyone could contribute to the list? How will our train system cope with that and how will the infrastructure of Haslemere cope with this. In 2006 data was collected that Haslemere had over 8000 cars coming into it daily the average speeds being between 35-39 mph (I still have the original documentation/emails.) We need safer access to the Town Center for pedestrians to maintains its vibrancy, and perhaps should be looking at how other historic towns on how to manage this.

Comments are closed.