At its September 2024 meeting, the OPDC Board commissioned an external review of its own ‘effectiveness’. The Board is responsible for leadership, setting strategic direction, and overall policy for the Corporation.
The review has been carried out by consultants Campbell Tickell. Their report will be discussed at the December 5th meeting of the Board.
As covered in a previous post we have been making the case for two years for an independent review of the track record and achievements to date of the OPDC. We welcome this latest exercise, and asked if the Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum and Grand Union Alliance could provide the consultants with a note on the background to ‘community input’ to the work of the OPDC.
It is now almost a decade since OONF and the GUA formed to join up the work of local residents groups across the Boroughs impacted on by OPDC and HS2 plans and activities. We feel that our experience in our dealings with both bodies is very relevant at this time.
A third Mayoral Development Corporation is to be established in London, to oversee plans for Oxford Street. Some form of development corporation has been proposed for Euston, by the former Prime Minister last October and by the current Secretary of State for Transport Louise Haigh.
The extent to which local people will have any opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the work of these boards, and to influence outcomes, is an important topic for Londoners. We have had serious reservations about the way in which the OPDC has operated since 2017, and some doubts about the inherent tensions of a model which combines the role of ‘delivery agency’ with that of a planning authority.
Removal of these powers from a local council is one issue, and the fact that MDCs do not have responsibility or powers to deal with highways, transport and social infrastructure is another,
OPDC’s David Lunts agreed to pass on our views on ‘community input’ to the consultants undertaking the effectiveness of the OPDC Board. These are taken account (to a limited extent) is the Campbell Tickell report. There remain concerns which we feel the Board should consider when it discusses the review, and a follow up letter will be posted here shortly.