The council has stated explicitly that “The Opportunity Area designation follows on from our Direction of Travel ("DofT") document. They have completely ignored repeated and legitimate challenge of the soundness of the DofT which I reproduce below and in the attached document.

Please read and share this petition with your neighbours and friends. The public authorities that are meant to represent our interests and to follow established procedures for decision-making should not be allowed to act in this way. It is particularly appalling when the decisions being made will have such a massive impact on the whole Royal Borough.

The Direction of Travel:

1. Is unconstitutional

2. Was negotiated behind closed doors

3. Was formed by a Board that acted beyond its remit and without going through committee channels

4. Was not supported by any consultation at formative stages

5. Is not fit for purpose to establish policy hook for Opportunity Areas in the London Plan

6. Was never clearly exposed for what it is, as a policy hook for creating Opportunity Areas across the Borough

7. Contains intentional lack of clarity and intentional obfuscation

8. Does not meet procedural requirements or requirements for consultation

Here are the details in full:

The council has stated explicitly that “The Opportunity Area designation follows on from our Direction of Travel ("DofT") document. They have completely ignored legitimate challenge of the soundness of the DofT which I reproduce below .

The Direction of Travel:
1. Is unconstitutional
The body that negotiated the DofT was established by a sub-committee of the Council and not according to the constitution, It therefore acted unconstitutionally in negotiating a development plan for the Borough with the GLA and TfL. Article 4.02 of the Constitution states that : “Only Full Council will point d. : agree or amend the terms of reference for panels, committees etc, deciding on their composition and making appointments to them”

2. Was negotiated behind closed doors
The DofT was negotiated behind closed doors with the GLA and TfL by a Strategic Growth Board on which only two members of the council sat – Mr Kevin Davis, who acted as chair of the meetings and Mr David Cunningham. The discussions and decisions made at meetings never went through proper council channels as they evolved and were never presented to council committee for debate or approval.

3. Was formed by a Board that acted beyond its remit and without going through committee channels
The Strategic Growth Board that negotiated the DofT acted beyond its remit in negotiating Opportunity Areas across the whole Borough. The SGB was only given authority on 24/3/15 to explore the POSSIBILITY of an Opportunity Area in Kingston Town Centre alone. This was never discussed again at any council committee.
On 28/1/16 the Kingston Opportunity Area Strategic Board which I understand is the GLA’s slightly more meaningful name for the Strategic Growth Board agreed to “broaden the scope of the document to look at opportunities for growth across the Borough” and on a map of “Kingston CrossRail OAPF” it is mentioned that the Council acting through the SGB intended to “broaden the scope of the document to look at opportunities for growth across the Borough”

4. Was not supported by any consultation at formative stages
As plans for development across the Borough in multiple Opportunity Areas between January 22 2015 and June 2016 expanded, there was no consultation with residents or with any committee of the council whatsoever. The only "consultation" happened suddenly and without warning over the summer holidays of 2016 with no allowance for the fact that it covered a period when most people were away

5. Is not fit for purpose to establish policy hook for Opportunity Areas in the London Plan
The DofT does not in any way establish Opportunity Areas across the Borough as defined in the London Plan. It uses vague and confusing terminology to describe areas of potential growth, such as “areas of opportunity” and “opportunities for growth” and the “added opportunity of CR” . It does not define what an Opportunity Area is or clearly define specific “Opportunity Areas” that are being planned.
No decision making body can legitimately claim that the DofT provides sufficient justification for cross-Borough sites in Kingston to be designated as Opportunity Areas in the new London Plan

6. Was never exposed for what it actually is
The council hid the true purpose of the DofT from residents. They repeatedly focused on what the document is "not" in terms of how it has limited weight to determine planning applications locally, but failed to explain that it gave the GLA - if sound - all they need to establish Opportunity Status for large swathes of Kingston Borough 

7. Contains intentional lack of clarity
The DofT is so vague and unclear that there is no way that anybody could understand its importance without clear explanation. It came out of the blue, and its title gave no indication of the fact that its purpose was to provide the basis for Kingston Borough to become an Opportunity Area. It is to be questioned why throughout meeting notes of meetings with the GLA, the document is referred to as some kind of “Opportunity Area” document, and that it was proposed on 15/4/16 that the document should be called the “Direction of Travel for the Kingston Opportunity Area”. Somehow nearly all references to “Opportunity Area” were taken out in the final document and the title for Kingston residents became merely the “Direction of Travel” which is meaningless.

8. Does not meet procedural requirements or requirements for consultation
The DofT fails legal test on procedural requirements and consultation The Dof T was not properly or adequately reasoned and failed to deal with substantive issues raised by consultees. The decision to approve the DofT breached the Wednesdbury principle in that it was sufficiently out of proportion with the requirement of the situation to make a sound and informed and transparent decision, based on comprehensive and complete information that it should be considered to have been unreasonable. It also failed the Cabinet Consultation Principle in that a large part of consultation took place over the summer and no allowance was made for this fact. In addition, the DofT was being negotiated between January 2015 and June 2016. During this period, plans for the Borough changed significantly. There was absolutely no consultation at any formative stage of these plans, thus breaching the Gunning and Sedley consultation principles. Reasons given to justify the proposal were so muddled and unclear that intelligent challenge and response difficult. There is absolutely no evidence that the “product of the consultation was taken into account when finalising proposals.” There was never any evidence that the council “had views that were open to change and which could therefore be influenced by responses received”. None of the many substantive responses to consultation received resulted in any changes to the document